
Welcome to J. J. Keller COMPLIANCE NETWORK
Make regulatory compliance easier than ever at your company with expert guidance and resources custom-tailored to your exact needs.
Welcome to J. J. Keller COMPLIANCE NETWORK
Make regulatory compliance easier than ever at your company with expert guidance and resources custom-tailored to your exact needs.
Workplace safety (OSHA).
Transportation (DOT).
Environment (EPA).
Human resources (DOL).
Are you storing and disposing of hazardous waste correctly or sitting on disaster? Hazardous waste storage is not just a regulatory headache – it is a time bomb for the environment and your company’s bottom line. A disaster in east London, England, is an ongoing issue for nearby residents that highlights the importance of hazardous waste management and why employers must take it seriously.
Originally intended for construction waste disposal, the site eventually turned into a dumping ground for hazardous industrial materials. Investigations found plastics, asbestos, industrial chemicals, and carcinogenic substances illegally dumped, creating an environmental and public health hazard. These materials fuel the fires, continuously releasing toxic smoke into the air. Residents have reported respiratory problems, skin irritation, and other health issues while authorities struggle to contain the situation. Even though this incident occurred in London, we can learn plenty of valuable lessons from the incident. Here’s how employers can take proactive measures to ensure compliance, protect workers, and prevent environmental harm:
A hazardous waste management plan should:
Train personnel on their roles and responsibilities when handling hazardous waste. Training should include:
The primary reason behind illegal waste dumping is financial. We all know it is not cheap to dispose of hazardous waste, but waste generators are responsible for their waste from “cradle to grave.”
One of the most effective ways to prevent hazardous waste incidents is to reduce reliance on them in the first place. By switching to safer alternatives, employers can lower their risk of exposure. Industries now offer eco-friendly coatings, adhesives, and cleaning agents that perform well without all the side effects. Safer alternatives also reduce compliance costs by lowering the burdens for hazardous waste disposal.
The disaster near London is a stark reminder of the consequences of negligent hazardous waste management. Businesses that cut corners on waste disposal risk legal penalties and contribute to long-term environmental and public health damage.
Keys to remember: Employers can protect their workforce, comply with regulations, and prevent environmental disasters by adopting proactive waste management strategies.
A joint Congressional resolution disapproved the 2024 Final Waste Emissions Charge (WEC) Rule on oil and gas facilities with high methane emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that the regulation, which initially took effect on January 17, 2025, is now no longer in effect.
Who’s impacted?
The WEC rule applied to facilities in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems category that:
Facilities that were subject to the rule are no longer required to comply (i.e., submit WEC filings by September 2, 2025).
What’s next?
EPA stated it’s “currently evaluating options and obligations for implementing Clean Air Act Section 136(c–g) and will provide additional information to the regulated community at an appropriate time."
Section 136, added by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, mandates that EPA implement a methane reduction incentive program for petroleum and natural gas systems, including imposing and collecting a WEC on methane emissions above waste emissions limits.
The disapproval occurred on March 14, 2025, just two days after the agency announced 31 deregulatory actions it plans to take.
Key to remember: EPA’s Waste Emissions Charge on petroleum and natural gas facilities for excess methane is no longer in effect.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on March 12, 2025, that it’s taking 31 actions to advance President Trump’s Day One executive orders and the recently announced “Powering the Great American Comeback” Initiative. The agency’s actions will likely impact environmental regulations across various industries.
Rules under review
EPA will reconsider an assortment of rulemakings, including:
The agency will also take other actions, such as:
About EPA’s new initiative
In February 2025, the agency announced the Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative, which outlines EPA’s priorities. The initiative consists of five pillars:
EPA’s 31 actions will primarily address the first three pillars.
Key to remember: EPA will reconsider major rulemakings that may impact a variety of industries.
Another riveting video is posted by the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB)! The animated video covers a massive explosion at a Texas machine shop. Two workers and a member of the public were killed. Over 450 neighboring homes/businesses were damaged.
The 14-minute video, “No Detection: Explosion …,” follows a June 2023 investigation report. When the 56-page report came out, CSB Chairperson Steve Owens said, “Our investigation found that [the company] did not have an effective program in place to assess potential hazards in its propylene process and did not have a mechanical integrity program or written operating procedures.”
The incident was compounded by emergency planning failures, says CSB. Owens argued, “This tragic incident was made even worse due to the lack of emergency response training for employees at the facility.”
CSB explains that a degraded and poorly crimped rubber welding hose disconnected from its fitting inside a coating booth. That prompted a release of propylene, a flammable vapor.
By the time workers arrived at the facility the early morning of January 24, 2020, an explosive concentration of propylene had formed inside the building. As workers entered and turned on the lights, the vapor ignited, triggering an explosion. It:
The board’s investigation later found that the company had:
OSHA cited the company 12 years earlier for failing to inspect gas system equipment for signs of deterioration or leaks. The 2008 OSHA visit was prompted by another explosion of propylene gas.
Following the later 2020 incident, OSHA issued citations for failing to:
CSB explains that the shop’s propylene amount was below the threshold for OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard at 29 CFR 1910.119 or EPA’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) standard at 40 CFR 68. Still, the CSB investigation identified these safety issues:
Owens concludes that the deadly incident could have been mitigated if the company had implemented an effective PSM system for the hazards of its coating operation. Even if a leak occurred, Owens believes an emergency response plan could have prevented the tragic loss of life.
OSHA chemical emergency preparedness may include an emergency action plan and/or an emergency response plan.
To prevent chemical incidents, CSB urges you to:
Have questions about chemical safety or emergency planning? Pose them to our J. J. Keller® experts! Visit our Expert Help page today! |
The latest video comes after the board received a “Silver Play Button” award. The CSB’s video channel boasts 364K subscribers and nearly 100 safety videos. The channel has had over 65M combined views since 2007. What’s more, CSB claims that the chemical industry itself and engineering schools use the videos for chemical safety training.
A new CSB video covers the 2020 massive explosion at a Texas machine shop. The board urges you to implement PSM systems even if not required. CSB also presses you to ensure that workers are trained in emergency response plans.
During a recent discussion about the persistent challenges of maintaining air quality standards within heavy industrial operations, one colleague in the field shared about a large Midwestern industrial facility that faced allegations of significant Clean Air Act violations. Our casual lunch meeting turned into a case study on uncontrolled emissions of particulate matter (PM).
An investigation identified the facility’s clinker cooler and raw mill operations as primary sources of excess PM. Monitoring data revealed the facility consistently exceeded permitted emission limits, suggesting systemic deficiencies in pollution control systems. Further inspection pointed to potential inadequate maintenance and operation of existing baghouse filters, a critical technology for capturing airborne particles. The facility also appeared to struggle with fugitive dust emissions from material handling and storage areas, indicating a need for improved dust suppression measures.
The case clarifies the importance of rigorous, proactive environmental management within heavy industrial operations. To prevent similar violations, facilities should prioritize comprehensive monitoring and reporting. Continuous emission monitoring systems provide real-time data, enabling early detection of deviations from permitted limits. Regular inspections and preventative maintenance of pollution control equipment are essential. This includes ensuring baghouse filters operate within their design parameters and promptly replacing damaged or worn components.
Additionally, robust fugitive dust control plans are vital. They should address all potential sources of fugitive dust, encompassing material handling, storage, and transport. Implementing strategies such as water spraying, enclosure of conveyors, and optimized material stockpiling can significantly reduce emissions.
Beyond technology, a strong environmental compliance culture is crucial. It involves employee training on environmental regulations, operational procedures, and the importance of adhering to pollution control measures. Regular audits and internal assessments can help identify potential weaknesses and ensure ongoing compliance.
Industrial facilities can minimize their environmental impact and avoid costly enforcement actions by focusing on:
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. There’s a lot going on, so let’s get started!
Under a new Executive Order, federal agencies must eliminate 10 regulations for each new one they introduce. This applies to all new rules, regulations, or guidance issued by government agencies such as the Department of Labor, which includes OSHA, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
A new OSHA fact sheet outlines employee rights and protections when filing a whistleblower complaint. Employers may not retaliate against employees who exercise their rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
OSHA will not cite employers for COVID-19 recordkeeping violations under its Healthcare Emergency Temporary Standard. These regulations are specific to healthcare settings. The provisions remain in effect, but until further notice, OSHA will not enforce them.
New guidance from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends that employers use individual, quantitative fit-testing for hearing protection. This helps evaluate how well workers’ hearing protection reduces noise levels and ensures a proper fit.
And finally, turning to environmental news, states across the country continue to consider and implement regulations related to PFAS. These “forever chemicals” are long-lasting chemicals that may pose risks to human and environmental health. A recent study anticipates that more than half of the states in the U.S. are likely to consider PFAS-related policies this year.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
A group of substances called “forever chemicals” lasts long in the environment, but the submission period for its one-time reporting requirement doesn’t. And it starts in just a few months. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires covered entities to report data about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) they manufactured between 2011 and 2022.
Required by Section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the report covers PFAS production volumes, disposal, exposures, and hazards. The submission period opens on July 11, 2025. Here are answers to five common questions about the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) report.
The TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting requirements apply to any person who manufactured (including imported) a PFAS or PFAS-containing article between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2022, for commercial purposes.
EPA defines terms for this reporting requirement at 40 CFR 705.3.
One vital thing to note is that the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting requirement allows for no exemptions. The rule even covers PFAS manufactured as a byproduct, impurity, or non-isolated intermediate. The only activity that doesn’t require reporting is importing municipal solid waste streams to dispose of or destroy the waste.
The information required depends on whether you use the standard or streamlined TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting form.
The standard form contains:
The streamlined form requires less information than the standard form. Two types of reporters qualify to use streamlined reporting:
Importers may choose to use the streamlined “PFAS in Imported Article” form. If you imported a PFAS-containing article and manufactured (including imported) the same PFAS (not in an article), you can either:
Manufacturers of qualifying R&D PFAS can use the “Research & Development PFAS” form. However, you cannot use the streamlined form if you manufactured a PFAS in small quantities for R&D and otherwise manufactured (including imported) the same PFAS.
For most manufacturers, the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) report submission period runs from July 11, 2025, to January 22, 2026. Small manufacturers who solely imported PFAS-containing articles have a longer submission period, from July 11, 2025, to July 11, 2026.
Reports must be submitted electronically through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Go to the Chemical Information Submission System and choose the “TSCA Section 8(a)(7)” application.
Note that you must have a registered account on EPA’s CDX to submit the report, and the facility for which you’re submitting the report must also be registered on the platform.
TSCA Section 8(a)(7), as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, required EPA to develop a rule to gather data about PFAS from entities that manufacture or have manufactured PFAS and PFAS-containing articles. The agency finalized the rule in October 2023 for this one-time reporting requirement.
The TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reports will give EPA a more complete picture of PFAS manufactured in the U.S. The agency will use the data to further its understanding of the forever chemicals and inform future regulatory actions.
Key to remember: The submission period for the one-time PFAS reporting requirement opens July 11, 2025. It applies to anyone who manufactured (including imported) PFAS or PFAS-containing articles between 2011 and 2022.
Used oil disposal is a critical issue for safety managers and shop supervisors in industrial settings. Whether your facility generates used oil from machinery, vehicles, or hydraulic systems, you must understand the regulatory requirements to ensure compliance and avoid hefty fines.
Used oil is not always considered hazardous waste, but improper handling, storage, or disposal can lead to regulatory violations and environmental hazards. Understanding how used oil is classified, when it is considered hazardous, and how to manage it in compliance with 40 CFR Part 279 is essential.
Let’s uncover the regulatory framework for used oil disposal, including storage requirements, transportation rules, and best practices to ensure compliance at both the federal and state levels.
The EPA defines used oil as any petroleum-based or synthetic oil that has been used and is contaminated by physical or chemical impurities. Common sources of used oil in industrial operations include:
According to EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 279), used oil is presumed to be managed under the less stringent used oil management standards unless it meets hazardous waste criteria.
Used oil becomes hazardous waste if:
If used oil is classified as hazardous waste, it must be managed in accordance with the applicable solid and hazardous waste requirements.
The EPA requirements for used oil consist of three different aspects, as outlined below.
1. Storage Requirements
Use leak-proof tanks and containers made of durable, non-earthen materials (e.g., steel, plastic, or concrete). Label all used oil containers with the words "Used Oil" to prevent misidentification. Prevent leaks and spills by using secondary containment systems and regularly inspecting tanks. Never mix used oil with hazardous waste unless authorized.
2. Transportation and Disposal
Used oil generators may transport up to 55 gallons of used oil to a registered collection center without an EPA ID number. If contracting a used oil transporter, ensure they have an EPA Identification Number.
Used oil must be:
3. Spill Prevention and Cleanup
Facilities storing large amounts of used oil must have a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. SPCC plans establish procedures, methods, and equipment requirements to prevent oil from reaching waterways, and to contain discharges of oil.
Any spills must be cleaned up immediately, and absorbent materials must be disposed of properly. Rags and shop towels contaminated with hazardous materials may be classified as hazardous waste.
While the EPA focuses on environmental compliance, OSHA (29 CFR Part 1910) regulates worker safety when handling used oil. Key OSHA requirements include:
1. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Workers handling used oil must wear gloves and protective clothing to prevent skin exposure. Safety goggles or face shields are also important to avoid eye contact.
2. Hazard communication (HazCom) program
Employers must label all used oil containers with appropriate hazard information and train employees on safe handling procedures and emergency response.
3. Fire and Explosion Safety
Always store used oil away from ignition sources to prevent fire hazards. Ensure storage areas are ventilated to avoid vapor buildup.
Many states have stricter used oil regulations than federal laws. For example:
To ensure compliance, check with your state’s environmental agency for state-specific used oil disposal rules and whether used oil is considered hazardous. Additional permits for transporting or processing used oil may be necessary.
Ensuring compliance with EPA, OSHA, and state laws is essential for safety managers and shop supervisors handling used oil. By following proper storage, transportation, and disposal practices, businesses can reduce environmental risks, improve workplace safety, and avoid costly fines.
Key to remember: By staying informed and proactive, your facility can maintain safe, sustainable, and compliant used oil management practices.
You might argue that warehouses have always posed challenges to fire service crews. However, today’s warehouses are pushing the boundaries on what firefighters can handle. Modern warehouses have far more square feet, sky-high storage racks, and compacted arrangements making it tougher for crews to reach a fire quickly. Commodities with lithium-ion batteries add another danger layer in a fire. Plus, robots can get in the way.
To sort this out, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) released back-to-back reports and a podcast that give warehouse owners/operators and fire crews a lot to think about:
Over 1,500 warehouse fires happen annually on average, NFPA estimates. That means warehouse fires are not rare. The first time that fire crews lay eyes on your warehouse should not be when there’s a roaring fire there in the middle of the night.
Ideally, fire service members should be involved before a warehouse is built. That way, things like water supplies and crew access can be part of the drawing board. If your warehouse is already in operation, it’s still critical for fire services to check out your warehouse. They can get familiar with your warehouse configuration, its fire suppression systems, and its stored commodities.
While the two reports detail challenges and trends for warehouse fires, one overarching takeaway prevails — pre-planning between the warehouse owner/operator and the fire service is a must. The concept is covered in the podcast too. Pre-incident planning inevitably helps fire crews to efficiently control and suppress an actual fire. It also informs the owner/operator about fire crew capabilities for the site.
OSHA’s Emergency Action Plan standard calls for covered employers to implement a plan to protect employees during fire emergencies. This requirement is found at 29 CFR 1910.38, 1915.502, 1917.30, 1918.100, and 1926.35, depending on your industry. However, the pre-incident planning that NFPA is talking about is pre-planning WITH the fire department so that there are better outcomes for people and property, in the event of a fire.
The 125-page NFPA report, “Identifying Challenges to Fire Service Response in Storage Facilities,” emphasizes that warehouses are evolving to meet greater demand. The report:
One recommendation suggests that future study needs to focus on ways fire departments can improve communication with warehouse owners/operators about pre-planning. The idea is that more communication should happen not only for existing warehouses but before constructing them. It’s also vital when warehouses are about to experience a change. Similarly, fire departments and warehouse owners/operators need to work out how employees will be head counted during a fire incident.
Another NFPA report, “Warehouse Structure Fires,” chronicles thousands of warehouse fires that happened between 2018 to 2022. In some cases, the 8-page report reflects on fires going back to 1980. It offers 13 charts that cover the:
The report concludes that four components are essential to protecting warehouses from fire: proper sprinkler systems, automatic alarms, pre-fire inspections, and pre-planning.
Finally, NFPA sat down with two fire protection professionals for 42 minutes to talk about “Big Storage, Bigger Questions.” The podcast sunk its teeth into some of the deeper concepts found in the new “Identifying Challenges” report, including:
Again, pre-planning was reiterated. The pros explained that warehouses have many variables, so getting crews into these facilities before any fire happens is important for better outcomes if a fire were to occur.
NFPA released two reports and a podcast related to the challenges of combating warehouse fires and the history of fires in U.S. warehouses. Pre-planning is an overarching theme in all three.
When you think of workers getting stuck by a contaminated needlestick, you think of healthcare. Right? Well, a recent NIOSH fact sheet argues that you also need to picture law enforcement officers. That’s because they’re at risk of these incidents when they search people, property, vehicles, or homes!
Syringes and needles are not the only sharps to worry about, however. Other sharps include lancets, scalpels, and auto-injectors. The thing is, contaminated needlesticks/sharps injuries can infect officers with viruses. These include hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), HIV, and others.
Is it reasonably anticipated that your law enforcement officers will have contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials (OPIM) as part of their jobs? If so, they have what OSHA calls “occupational exposure.” That includes reasonably anticipated incidents involving contaminated needlesticks or other contaminated sharps as part of the duties of an officer, the subject of the latest fact sheet.
That's a trick question! The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) only covers the private sector. There’s a gap in coverage for the public sector workers like law enforcement officers employed by a municipality or state agency. That means federal OSHA does not regulate the Bloodborne Pathogens (BBP) standard at 29 CFR 1910.1030 for these officers.
However, many states have filled that gap in one of two ways:
If your state has bloodborne pathogens laws and regulations, it’s important to meet them if you have officers (or any workers) with occupational exposure. Note that occupational exposure is not the same thing as an exposure incident. An exposure incident is actual contact with blood or OPIM. Whereas occupational exposure is reasonably anticipated contact as part of the job duties.
Regardless whether your officers are protected by bloodborne pathogens laws and regulations, NIOSH’s fact sheet (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2025-101) provides tips and best practices specific to the risks to law enforcement. For example, NIOSH suggests that officers complete training on:
Some ways officers can keep safe include, but are not limited to:
When handling sharps, NIOSH recommends:
If an officer suffers an exposure incident involving a contaminated needlestick/sharp, the fact sheet urges the officer to:
Treatment should be sought from a healthcare provider immediately. That provider may offer medication or a vaccine to prevent infection.
The latest fact sheet comes on the heels of an 8-page guidance document from NIOSH — DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2022-154. Learn more about that in our J. J. Keller® Compliance Network article, “NIOSH report points at sharps injuries in law enforcement,” from September 7, 2022.
A recent NIOSH fact sheet argues that law enforcement officers who do searches are at risk of needlestick/sharps incidents! The agency offers tips about how to stay safe and how to handle and dispose of sharps safely. It also explains what to do if there’s an exposure incident.
Over the past few years, federal environmental regulations have targeted a specific group of chemicals: per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) isn’t the only entity taking action to control PFAS; state agencies are too. A recent study anticipates that more than half of the states in the U.S. are likely to consider PFAS-related policies in 2025.
So, how should businesses respond? Stay alert to the PFAS regulations at the state level.
PFAS, called “forever chemicals,” are long-lasting manufactured chemicals that may pose risks to human and environmental health. With thousands of PFAS chemicals, however, controlling their use to reduce the risks is no easy task.
Additionally, PFAS appear in nearly every sector. They’re used in a wide range of products (like food packaging, cleaning products, and textiles) and for commercial and industrial applications.
Safer States, an alliance of environmental organizations that supports developing state regulatory policies for toxic chemicals, published the 2025 Analysis of State Policy Addressing Toxic Chemicals and Plastics. The evaluation covered states’ toxic chemical policies (a) introduced in 2025, (b) introduced in 2024 and considered through 2025, and (c) expected to be introduced in 2025. It also included related proposed regulations that would implement existing state laws.
The report projects that at least 29 states will likely consider policies to address PFAS in 2025, including:
|
|
|
Safer States expects these states to consider policies such as:
Multiple states already have PFAS rules on the books. Check out these examples:
Many states also have proposed PFAS rules under consideration, like Texas, Maine, Arizona, Illinois, and Virginia.
If your facility uses PFAS, it’s essential to know whether the state has regulations that apply to your operations. Plus, knowing the state’s potential future PFAS rules coming down the pipeline can help you better prepare to comply.
Consider these general tips to support your facility’s efforts to track state PFAS actions:
Staying alert to state PFAS regulations can help your organization maintain compliance.
Key to remember: States across the country continue to consider and implement regulations related to PFAS. Staying alert to state PFAS actions is key for businesses to stay compliant.
Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. There’s a lot going on, so let’s get started!
As happens at the start of most incoming presidential administrations, a freeze has been placed on all regulatory activity at the federal level, giving the new administration time to review agencies’ plans. The Office of Management and Budget, which must approve most rulemaking activities, has sent numerous pending rules back to the agencies for review. In addition, OSHA withdrew its infectious diseases proposed rule and its COVID-19 in healthcare rule prior to the inauguration.
OSHA’s penalties increased on January 15. The maximum penalty amounts for serious and other-than-serious violations increased to $16,550. For willful or repeated violations, the maximum penalty increased to $165,514 per violation.
OSHA updated its directive on injury and illness recordkeeping policies and procedures. While it’s intended for OSHA compliance officers, employers can use the information to help with recordkeeping compliance.
Fewer workers died on the job in 2023, as fatal work injuries decreased 3.7 percent from 2022. Transportation incidents remained the most frequent type of fatal event, accounting for over 36 percent of all occupational fatalities.
California’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board voted to adopt a permanent silica standard. If approved, it would extend and strengthen the state’s emergency temporary standard, which was put in place in December 2023.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health updated its List of Hazardous Drugs in Healthcare Settings. This is a resource for employers and employees in identifying drugs that are hazardous to the health and safety of those who handle them.
Turning to environmental news, EPA released the biannual update of the nonconfidential TSCA inventory. The inventory helps facilities determine their regulatory requirements for the chemicals they use or plan to use.
And finally, EPA added new Management Method Codes to describe how hazardous waste will be managed after temporary storage and transfer. As of January 1st, hazardous waste handlers must use the codes on the Biennial Report Waste Generation and Management forms.
Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) controls the amount of pollutants that reach the waters of the United States through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The NPDES program covers two types of discharges from industrial sources:
Although they’re under the same federal permitting program, stormwater and wastewater discharges are distinct, and their permits are too. Know the basic differences between these types of industrial discharges to ensure your facility complies.
Rain and snow that flow over land or impervious surfaces (like building rooftops and parking lots) and don’t soak into the ground generate stormwater runoff. The runoff can gather pollutants generated by industrial activities at a facility and transport them into nearby waterbodies. Your facility must have a permit to discharge stormwater associated with industrial activities to waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.26).
The NPDES program regulates stormwater discharges from 11 categories of industrial activities, listed at 122.26(b)(14). Examples of covered activities include:
Note, however, that construction sites that disturb 5 or more acres (the tenth category) are permitted individually.
The permit contains stormwater control measures (including “best management practices”) to limit pollutants that enter stormwater runoff. Containment systems, employee training, and infiltration devices are all ways to control runoff.
Most states issue industrial stormwater discharge permits. EPA issues individual permits and the Multi-Sector General Permits (MSGPs) to facilities where the agency is the permitting authority. The MSGP is EPA’s general permit for industrial stormwater discharges.
Many industrial processes use or generate water that contains pollutants, referred to as industrial wastewater. There are two types of wastewater:
Your facility must have a permit to discharge industrial wastewater to surface waters (122.21(a)).
The NPDES program regulates direct wastewater discharges from industrial sources through rules based on the type of facility and activity. The regulations also have industry-specific requirements for:
Effluent limitations are the primary control method for industrial wastewater discharges. EPA establishes Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) for industrial categories and subcategories. These pollution-reduction performance standards are based on the best available technology that’s economically achievable by facilities in the industry. The ELGs are then incorporated into the permits through effluent limitations.
Additionally, industrial facilities must meet water quality-based effluent limitations when the technology-based standards don’t achieve the required water quality standards. Both industrial stormwater and wastewater discharge permits may include technology- and water quality-based effluent limitations.
As with stormwater permits, most states issue industrial wastewater permits. Facilities in areas where EPA is the permitting authority must obtain either a general or individual NPDES permit.
Because a majority of the states run stormwater and wastewater permitting programs, it’s crucial to check the state regulations. State permits must contain limits as stringent as EPA’s federal permits, and some states may impose stricter limits and/or additional requirements.
EPA’s website lists the states authorized to issue NPDES permits with links to the state agencies that run the NPDES program.
Key to remember: Industrial stormwater and wastewater discharges, and the permits that regulate them, are different.
A new executive order from the Trump administration takes aim at government regulations, vowing to remove 10 rules for every new one issued.
The new directive, signed January 31, 2025, will apply to all new “rules, regulations, or guidance” issued by government agencies such as the Department of Transportation, the Department of Labor, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The order says over-regulation has increased costs and inflation, killed jobs and businesses, reduced choice, discouraged innovation, and infringed on liberties.
The move aims to cut much more than a similar “two-for-one” order issued at the start of President Trump’s first stint in the White House in 2017. That order applied only to regulations that would cost $100 million or more.
The White House says the 2017 order was “the most aggressive and successful regulatory reduction effort in history” and eliminated five and one-half regulations for every new one issued.
The new order, according to a White House fact sheet, says that whenever an agency promulgates a new rule, regulation, or guidance, it must identify at least 10 existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to be repealed.
It will be up to the head of the White House Office of Management and Budget to enforce the order and ensure agencies use a standard measuring stick to verify compliance.
The order also requires that for fiscal year 2025 (which ends September 30), “the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, be significantly less than zero,” the fact sheet says. The order itself was not available on the White House website when this article was published.
The new executive order comes on the heels of another directive, issued January 20, 2025, that put a freeze on all pending regulations until the new administration has time to review them.
With a backlog of 17 chemical incident investigations in the rearview mirror, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) released three safety-related deliverables — an animated video, a hazard alert, and a compilation of incident summaries. The agency also updated its reporting form.
Expect even more videos and summaries “soon.” That’s the word from CSB Chairperson Steve Owens last week, during the board’s quarterly business meeting. The board also noted that it is forging ahead with nine new investigations. It means we’ll see investigative reports down the line.
The CSB’s new 17-minute safety video, "Fire from the Storm," includes a riveting animation of the events leading to a fire and toxic gas release. The incident occurred when Hurricane Laura damaged a chemical storage facility in Louisiana.
Rainwater then reached the chemical storage. The chemical decomposed, producing toxic chlorine gas and a fire. A large plume of chlorine traveled over the community.
The CSB video calls on OSHA and EPA to amend regulations on Process Safety and Risk Management, respectively. Five key safety issues contributing to the incident are covered:
The latest video follows two others issued in October and July. It also aligns with an alert shared last July on hurricane preparedness.
Cold weather can crack or break pipes. It can also lead to ruptured or damaged process equipment and/or failing instruments. In December, CSB rang alarm bells over an uptick in chemical incidents during cold weather. The CSB alert listed over a dozen safety steps and links to guidance on cold weather operations.
Process safety management programs are regulated at 29 CFR 1910.119. Per the alert, these programs should consider how low temperatures may affect piping, equipment, and instruments. Equipment susceptible to ice or hydrate formation should also be identified and properly winterized.
Extreme weather dangers are a recurring theme for CSB. Last July, during hurricane season, Owens said, “When it comes to extreme weather, chemical companies should expect the unexpected and must always be prepared for the worst-case scenario.”
In a move toward transparency, CSB compiled summaries for 26 of the chemical incident reports it has received. These events summarized in Incident Reports Volume 1 resulted in five fatalities, 17 serious injuries, and about $697M in property damage in 15 states since April 2020.
For over two years the board has posted “overall” data about incidents reported under 40 CFR 1604. That’s the Reporting of Accidental Releases standard. CSB now calls this standard the “Accidental Release Reporting Rule (ARRR).”
For the record, CSB has received 460 reports in the last five years. The reports reveal 68 fatalities and 249 serious injuries/illnesses. Over 200 of these incidents involved property damage of $1M or more.
The overall data reports provide:
However, the latest Volume 1 also reveals:
Owens argued, “The American people have a right to know about the kinds of dangerous chemical incidents that happen across this country every week.”
It’s worth noting that CSB updated its Accidental Release Reporting Form and Instructions last June. The changes:
CSB continues to deliver videos, weather-related alerts, and data. The agency has also updated its reporting form and launched an initiative to reveal more incident details on a regular basis. Expect more from the board in 2025, along with any number of investigative reports.
Effective date: January 1, 2025, to June 29, 2025
This applies to: Public and private fleets purchasing new model year 2025 medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, vehicle dealerships selling new medium- and heavy-duty vehicles with internal combustion or zero-emission engines, vehicle manufacturers selling medium- and heavy-duty vehicles with internal combustion or zero-emission engines, and engine manufacturers selling medium- and heavy-duty vehicle internal combustion engines
Description of change: The temporary rule incorporates additional compliance flexibilities for manufacturers to meet the requirements of the California Air Resource Board’s (CARB’s) Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule, which CARB recently amended. The temporary rule also delays implementation of the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation rules by a year, taking effect with engine model year 2026 and/or vehicle model year 2027 (based on the specific rule section). It also adds more certification options for complete medium-duty zero-emission vehicles.
Effective date: February 24, 2025
This applies to: Agricultural use notices of intent (NOIs), soil fumigation NOIs, and restricted material NOIs
Description of change: The rule requires all agricultural use notices of intent (NOIs) must be submitted electronically on CalAgPermits.org unless granted an exemption. It also requires that NOIs for soil fumigation and restricted materials that require a permit to produce an agricultural commodity be electronically submitted on the same website. Finally, the rule requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation to publicize and provide status updates on NOI information it receives.
Effective date: December 5, 2024
This applies to: Airbag waste handlers and collection facilities
Description of change: This emergency readoption adds definitions for “airbag waste,” “airbag waste collection facility,” and “airbag waste handler.” It also gives airbag waste handlers a conditional exemption for transporting airbag waste to the waste collection facility.
View related state info:Solid and hazardous waste - California
Effective date: November 28, 2024
This applies to: Operators of surface facilities of high-volume Class II Disposal and Class II Commercial Disposal Wells
Description of change: The rule gives full regulatory authority to the Oil and Gas Commission, from which operators must obtain a permit to drill and operate disposal wells. It removes the need for operators to obtain an additional permit from the Department of Environmental Quality to operate the surface facilities. The Oil and Gas Commission assumes all regulatory responsibility for Class II well operations.
Effective date: January 2025 (dates vary by amendment)
This applies to: Entities subject to certain nonroad vehicle and engine emissions regulations under the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Description of change: The Environmental Protection Agency granted four amendment authorizations to CARB, allowing the state to implement and enforce more stringent emission standards for certain off-road (nonroad) vehicles and engines.
Small Off-Road Engine (SORE) regulation
Nearly all new SOREs with Model Year (MY) 2024 or later must achieve zero emissions of hydrocarbons and NOx and zero evaporative emissions. Large pressure washers and portable generators must meet the same zero-emission standards starting with MY 2028.
Effective date: January 6, 2025
In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation
The amendments require fleets to replace older vehicles with newer ones gradually through 2036. The phaseout timeline is based on fleet size and MY. The rule also restricts fleets from adding older vehicles (with a timeline also based on fleet size and MY through 2035) and requires all fleets to use specific renewable diesel.
Effective date: January 10, 2025
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets regulation
CARB’s rule imposes refrigerant use requirements for certain TRUs, sets particulate matter standards for non-truck TRUs, requires fleets to transition a percentage of TRUs to zero-emission technology refrigeration units (ZETRUs), and contains registration and reporting requirements for facilities with TRUs. The authorization, however, excludes CARB’s requirement for TRU owners to turn over 15 percent or more of its TRU fleet to ZETRUs by December 31, 2023, and each subsequent year.
In January 2025, CARB withdrew its authorization request for the rule’s mandate that TRU owners turn over 15 percent or more of their TRU fleet to ZETRUs by December 31, 2023, and each subsequent year.
Effective date: January 10, 2025
Commercial Harbor Craft regulation
EPA’s authorization excludes decisions on the Zero-Emission and Advanced Technologies standards for in-use short-run ferries and the standards for specific in-use engines and vessels with expiring feasibility extensions.
In January 2025, CARB withdrew its authorization request for the rule’s Zero-Emission and Advanced Technologies standards for in-use short-run ferries as well as the standards for specific in-use engines and vessels with expiring feasibility extensions.
Effective date: January 10, 2025
ENTER THE INSTITUTE
Be your company’s leading compliance authority with a robust library of articles, videos, and practical exercises designed to grow your knowledge of 120+ regulatory subjects.
Used oil disposal is a critical issue for safety managers and shop supervisors in industrial settings. Whether your facility generates used oil from machinery, vehicles, or hydraulic systems, you must understand the regulatory requirements to ensure compliance and avoid hefty fines.
Used oil is not always considered hazardous waste, but improper handling, storage, or disposal can lead to regulatory violations and environmental hazards. Understanding how used oil is classified, when it is considered hazardous, and how to manage it in compliance with 40 CFR Part 279 is essential.
Let’s uncover the regulatory framework for used oil disposal, including storage requirements, transportation rules, and best practices to ensure compliance at both the federal and state levels.
The EPA defines used oil as any petroleum-based or synthetic oil that has been used and is contaminated by physical or chemical impurities. Common sources of used oil in industrial operations include:
According to EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 279), used oil is presumed to be managed under the less stringent used oil management standards unless it meets hazardous waste criteria.
Used oil becomes hazardous waste if:
If used oil is classified as hazardous waste, it must be managed in accordance with the applicable solid and hazardous waste requirements.
The EPA requirements for used oil consist of three different aspects, as outlined below.
1. Storage Requirements
Use leak-proof tanks and containers made of durable, non-earthen materials (e.g., steel, plastic, or concrete). Label all used oil containers with the words "Used Oil" to prevent misidentification. Prevent leaks and spills by using secondary containment systems and regularly inspecting tanks. Never mix used oil with hazardous waste unless authorized.
2. Transportation and Disposal
Used oil generators may transport up to 55 gallons of used oil to a registered collection center without an EPA ID number. If contracting a used oil transporter, ensure they have an EPA Identification Number.
Used oil must be:
3. Spill Prevention and Cleanup
Facilities storing large amounts of used oil must have a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. SPCC plans establish procedures, methods, and equipment requirements to prevent oil from reaching waterways, and to contain discharges of oil.
Any spills must be cleaned up immediately, and absorbent materials must be disposed of properly. Rags and shop towels contaminated with hazardous materials may be classified as hazardous waste.
While the EPA focuses on environmental compliance, OSHA (29 CFR Part 1910) regulates worker safety when handling used oil. Key OSHA requirements include:
1. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Workers handling used oil must wear gloves and protective clothing to prevent skin exposure. Safety goggles or face shields are also important to avoid eye contact.
2. Hazard communication (HazCom) program
Employers must label all used oil containers with appropriate hazard information and train employees on safe handling procedures and emergency response.
3. Fire and Explosion Safety
Always store used oil away from ignition sources to prevent fire hazards. Ensure storage areas are ventilated to avoid vapor buildup.
Many states have stricter used oil regulations than federal laws. For example:
To ensure compliance, check with your state’s environmental agency for state-specific used oil disposal rules and whether used oil is considered hazardous. Additional permits for transporting or processing used oil may be necessary.
Ensuring compliance with EPA, OSHA, and state laws is essential for safety managers and shop supervisors handling used oil. By following proper storage, transportation, and disposal practices, businesses can reduce environmental risks, improve workplace safety, and avoid costly fines.
Key to remember: By staying informed and proactive, your facility can maintain safe, sustainable, and compliant used oil management practices.
A joint Congressional resolution disapproved the 2024 Final Waste Emissions Charge (WEC) Rule on oil and gas facilities with high methane emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that the regulation, which initially took effect on January 17, 2025, is now no longer in effect.
Who’s impacted?
The WEC rule applied to facilities in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems category that:
Facilities that were subject to the rule are no longer required to comply (i.e., submit WEC filings by September 2, 2025).
What’s next?
EPA stated it’s “currently evaluating options and obligations for implementing Clean Air Act Section 136(c–g) and will provide additional information to the regulated community at an appropriate time."
Section 136, added by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, mandates that EPA implement a methane reduction incentive program for petroleum and natural gas systems, including imposing and collecting a WEC on methane emissions above waste emissions limits.
The disapproval occurred on March 14, 2025, just two days after the agency announced 31 deregulatory actions it plans to take.
Key to remember: EPA’s Waste Emissions Charge on petroleum and natural gas facilities for excess methane is no longer in effect.
Quick action using cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillators(AEDs) can save the lives of the nearly 350,000 cardiac event victims each year outside of a hospital setting. But what does OSHA require for the workplace? What you didn’t know about OSHA regulations regarding AEDs may surprise you.
For every minute a patient is in cardiac arrest, their chances of survival decrease dramatically. When a patient doesn’t have a pulse and isn’t breathing, CPR should be performed until an AED is available. It’s important to note that CPR alone does not restart the heart. CPR is an oxygen circulation procedure. AEDs, on the other hand, are meant for lifesaving intervention.
CPR and early defibrillation are vital components of the emergency medical services (EMS) chain of survival that increases the odds of cardiac patient survival. However, according to the American Heart Association (AHA), even the best CPR can’t provide enough circulation of oxygen to the brain and heart for more than a few minutes. In fact, a patient whose brain is deprived of oxygen for 10 minutes or more seldom recovers.
Just like a reliable vehicle, the circulatory system is the human body’s blood transportation system, and the heart is the engine. Amazingly, the heart generates its own electrical impulses, pumping in a regular, rhythmic manner. As with any engine, the heart requires a certain amount of pressure to function and doesn’t work well when clogged with grease or debris. The most common causes of sudden cardiac arrest include a heart attack, electrocution, and asphyxiation — all of which could occur in the workplace. Common signs and symptoms include:
CPR provides the pressure for the body’s “engine” to oxygen circulating, while an AED provides the electrical impulses to keep the engine pumping.
OSHA 1910.151 requires first aid treatment be provided in the absence of an infirmary, clinic, or hospital in near proximity to the workplace used to treat injured employees. This may include assisting a victim of cardiac arrest using CPR or defibrillation.
OSHA requirements for CPR and defibrillation differ considerably. Standards requiring CPR include:
OSHA recommends basic adult CPR refresher training and retesting every year, and first aid training at least once every three years. CPR training include facilitated discussion along with ’hands-on’ skills training that uses mannequins and partner practice.
Though OSHA recognizes AEDs as important lifesaving technology that plays a role in treating cardiac arrest, the agency doesn’t currently require their use in the workplace. Instead, OSHA wants employers to assess their own requirements for AEDs as part of their first aid response.
AEDs are considered Class III medical devices which means the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has some oversight on their use. Almost all AEDs require the purchaser to obtain a prescription from a physician under FDA regulations. The prescription process is meant as a quality control mechanism to ensure AEDs are properly maintained, that all designated responders are properly trained, and assist employers with establishing an emergency response plan for their workplace AED program.
The AHA requires AED operators to also receive CPR training as an “integral part of providing lifesaving aid to people suffering sudden cardiac arrest.” Though easy to use, each AED is slightly different, so training helps users understand the unique traits and supplies for the individual units at their workplace. Additionally, AED users must be trained to understand the signs of a sudden cardiac arrest, when to activate the EMS system, and how to perform CPR.
AEDs are light, portable, easy to use, and inexpensive. They’re best placed near high-hazard areas such as confined spaces, near electrical energy, or in remote work areas. Response time to reach AEDs should be kept within 3–5-minutes.
Need more information on defibrillators in the workplace? See our ezExplanation on AEDs. |
Many states require or encourage CPR and AED training from nationally recognized organizations. Any AED training should include CPR training. OSHA doesn’t offer first aid or CPR training, nor certify trainers. Training by a nationally recognized organization, such as AHA, the American Red Cross, or National Safety Council is recommended.
While OSHA doesn’t currently require the use of AEDs in the workplace, they do expect employers to assess their own AED requirements as part of their first aid response. AED training is required by most states and should include CPR with a hands-on practical component.
You’ve evaluated your workplace injury risks, estimated emergency medical services (EMS) response times, and have determined you need trained first aid providers according to OSHA. But what’s considered a first aid provider — someone that’s first aid trained, or someone considered a first aid responder?
The OSHA First Aid standard (29 CFR 1910.151) requires trained first aid providers at all workplaces of any size if there is no “infirmary, clinic, or hospital in near proximity to the workplace which is used for the treatment of all injured employees.”
In addition to first aid requirements, several OSHA standards also require training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) because sudden cardiac arrest from asphyxiation, electrocution, or exertion may occur. These standards include permit-required confined spaces; logging; diving; and electrical power generation, transmission, and distribution.
OSHA requires prompt first aid treatment for injured employees, either by providing for the availability of a trained first aid provider at the worksite, or by ensuring that emergency services are within reasonable proximity of the worksite. Whether the first aid provider is a first responder or is first aid trained is up to you and your risk assessment.
Employees considered first aid trained can provide initial treatment to an injured person until more qualified personnel arrive. First aid trained individuals can triage injuries, control the scene to keep others safe, and call for emergency services when needed. Not all first aid trained employees will feel comfortable performing CPR, using an automated external defibrillator (AED), or splinting a broken bone, however.
First responders, though similar in their role, typically have a higher degree of training than first aid trained individuals. Generally speaking, first responders are those that beat the ambulance to the scene such as firefighters or police officers. These responders can perform rescue services or escalate emergency care as needed, such as performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or controlling severe bleeding.
Who is more vital for handling an emergency at your facility? Both! First aid trained employees have process and facility training that first responders may not. For example, they may be more familiar with chemicals on site or process operations. Therefore, they can navigate facilities to reach injured employees quicker to begin initial treatment. First responders, on the other hand, will have a higher level of training for first aid treatment of more complicated injuries.
OSHA clarifies in a letter of interpretation (LOI) from March 23, 2007, that, “While the first aid standards do not prescribe a number of minutes, OSHA has long interpreted the term ’near proximity’ to mean that emergency care must be available within no more than 3-4 minutes from the workplace. Medical literature establishes that, for serious injuries such as those involving stopped breathing, cardiac arrest, or uncontrolled bleeding, first aid treatment must be provided within the first few minutes to avoid permanent medical impairment or death. Accordingly, in workplaces where serious accidents such as those involving falls, suffocation, electrocution, or amputation are possible, emergency medical services must be available within 3-4 minutes, if there is no employee on the site who is trained to render first aid.”
Regarding work areas, such as offices, where the possibility of such serious work-related injuries is less likely, a longer response time of up to 15 minutes may be reasonable. OSHA gives employers discretion in determining higher risk areas that may need sooner response times.
Employers choosing to rely on assistance from outside emergency responders as an alternative to providing trained responders must ascertain that emergency medical assistance will be promptly available when an injury occurs.
OSHA doesn’t offer first aid or CPR training, nor certify trainers. Training by a nationally recognized organization, such as the American Heart Association or the American Red Cross is recommended. Successful completion of any first aid training program should include instructor observation of acquired hands-on skills and written performance assessments.
OSHA 1910.151 requires employers to ensure prompt first aid treatment for injured employees, either by providing for the availability of a trained first aid provider at the worksite, or by ensuring that emergency services are within reasonable proximity of the worksite. Employers should consider the workplace, hazards, workforce, and location when determining whether to have first aid trained employees or first responders for medical aid.
OSHA requires employers to provide all workers with immediately available and sanitary restroom or toilet facilities. But does this include truckers and delivery drivers that stop at your facilities? The sanitation standards (1910.141, 1926.51, and 1928.110) are meant to protect all workers from adverse health effects from unsanitary toilets facilities, or the unavailability of facilities when needed.
Bipartisan legislation has recently been introduced in the House that would require businesses to provide restroom access to truckers who are loading or delivering cargo at their warehouses, manufacturers, distribution centers, retailers, and ports.
Supported by leading organizations in the trucking industry, the Trucker Bathroom Access Act (H.R. 9592) was introduced on Dec. 15, 2022. The bill requires retailers, warehouses, and other establishments with existing restrooms to provide access to drivers who are loading or delivering cargo. Additionally, operators of ports and marine terminals must provide access for drayage and parking while accessing such restrooms.
This amendment to Title 49 would exempt some employers from the bill including filling and service stations, and restaurants 800-square feet or smaller with restrooms intended for employee use only. The bill doesn’t require employers to construct new restrooms but to give truck drivers the same access as employees or customers.
Commercial truckers and delivery drivers are the lifeline of our supply chain of supplies, products, and consumables. Working tirelessly all hours, during holidays and weekends, and throughout the pandemic, they continue to deliver critical food and emergency supplies to companies everywhere. Employers have the privilege of demonstrating gratitude to truckers and delivery drivers with a positive work environment.
The benefits of allowing truckers and delivery drivers the convenience and safety of readily available, sanitary restroom facilities are plenty. They’re able to rest and reset when necessary, which keeps them and others safer on the roads. Equally important, restroom availability prevents drivers from having to search for available facilities elsewhere, allowing them to keep a timely delivery schedule, limit supply chain delays, and ultimately lower costs for employers and customers.
The proposed Trucker Bathroom Access Act will require retailers, warehouses, and other establishments with existing restrooms to provide access to truckers and delivery drivers who are loading or delivering cargo. Access to restrooms keeps them refreshed and ready to deliver essential supplies to companies across the country.
Another riveting video is posted by the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB)! The animated video covers a massive explosion at a Texas machine shop. Two workers and a member of the public were killed. Over 450 neighboring homes/businesses were damaged.
The 14-minute video, “No Detection: Explosion …,” follows a June 2023 investigation report. When the 56-page report came out, CSB Chairperson Steve Owens said, “Our investigation found that [the company] did not have an effective program in place to assess potential hazards in its propylene process and did not have a mechanical integrity program or written operating procedures.”
The incident was compounded by emergency planning failures, says CSB. Owens argued, “This tragic incident was made even worse due to the lack of emergency response training for employees at the facility.”
CSB explains that a degraded and poorly crimped rubber welding hose disconnected from its fitting inside a coating booth. That prompted a release of propylene, a flammable vapor.
By the time workers arrived at the facility the early morning of January 24, 2020, an explosive concentration of propylene had formed inside the building. As workers entered and turned on the lights, the vapor ignited, triggering an explosion. It:
The board’s investigation later found that the company had:
OSHA cited the company 12 years earlier for failing to inspect gas system equipment for signs of deterioration or leaks. The 2008 OSHA visit was prompted by another explosion of propylene gas.
Following the later 2020 incident, OSHA issued citations for failing to:
CSB explains that the shop’s propylene amount was below the threshold for OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard at 29 CFR 1910.119 or EPA’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) standard at 40 CFR 68. Still, the CSB investigation identified these safety issues:
Owens concludes that the deadly incident could have been mitigated if the company had implemented an effective PSM system for the hazards of its coating operation. Even if a leak occurred, Owens believes an emergency response plan could have prevented the tragic loss of life.
OSHA chemical emergency preparedness may include an emergency action plan and/or an emergency response plan.
To prevent chemical incidents, CSB urges you to:
Have questions about chemical safety or emergency planning? Pose them to our J. J. Keller® experts! Visit our Expert Help page today! |
The latest video comes after the board received a “Silver Play Button” award. The CSB’s video channel boasts 364K subscribers and nearly 100 safety videos. The channel has had over 65M combined views since 2007. What’s more, CSB claims that the chemical industry itself and engineering schools use the videos for chemical safety training.
A new CSB video covers the 2020 massive explosion at a Texas machine shop. The board urges you to implement PSM systems even if not required. CSB also presses you to ensure that workers are trained in emergency response plans.
Warehouse operations pose a LOT of workplace safety challenges. In fact, worker injury/illness rates at warehouses nationwide have dwarfed those of another high-risk industry — construction! However, two safety/health topics jumped out as the toughest nuts to crack in a recent poll of warehouse operations. One was unexpected!
A March 2025 report from J. J. Keller and Associates, Inc., tapped 74 professionals. Respondents did not need to be in the “warehousing and storage industry” (or NAICS 493) to participate.
The poll asked, “Which of the following is your biggest warehouse safety/health challenge?” To frame the question, the poll offered options:
Seventeen respondents said that their organizations don’t have a warehouse. That left 57 with a warehouse challenge. The results shook out as follows:
Rank | Challenge | Percentage |
1 | Slips, trips, and falls (STFs) | 37% |
2 | Powered industrial trucks (PITs) | 21% |
3 | Materials storage hazards | 14% |
4 | Ergonomic hazards | 11% |
5 | Other | 11% |
6 | Exit routes | 4% |
7 | Electrical hazards | 2% |
8 | Motor vehicle hazards (not PITs) | 2% |
9 | Fire protection | 0% |
Remarkably, no one selected “Fire protection,” even though the Portable Fire Extinguishers standard ranked sixth in OSHA violations for the warehousing industry last fiscal year (FY).
For “other,” the respondents mentioned personal protective equipment and safety data sheets. Some raised topics associated with ergonomics and PITs. That reveals that these two issues may be greater challenges than indicated.
Boiling it down, two safety/health topics dog over half of the warehouses in the poll — STFs and PITs.
To get perspective, consider Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and OSHA data for NAICS 493. For example, according to BLS, for 2021 to 2022, the top “exposures” that led to days away from work were:
BLS fatality statistics for 2023 show these leading exposures:
Similarly, BLS explains that five “sources” of injury/illness with days away for 2021 to 2022 dominate the pack:
The most-violated OSHA standards for NAICS 493 in FY 2024 were 29 CFR:
Also, last year, OSHA revealed the top citations under its warehousing National Emphasis Program:
Given uppermost BLS and OSHA warehouse-related data that points at PITs, ergonomics, and motor vehicles, you might not have anticipated STFs to overwhelmingly command the lead. Possible explanations might be that:
Whatever the explanation, there’s a disconnect between what our respondents’ challenge areas are and what BLS and OSHA see for major causes of injuries/illnesses and violations, respectively. Yet, there’s value in combating the biggest challenges that turned up in our poll.
OSHA mandates that WWS be inspected regularly. Once you determine an inspection frequency that will keep surfaces safe, stick to it. The agency also calls for WWS inspections when conditions warrant an additional check.
To prevent falling off the dock edge, the dock doors must be closed when not in use, or a guardrail system must be in place. “Dock jumping” is prohibited. If workers need to go down at the dock area, make sure they use the stairs provided.
Chief compliance issues involving PITs are training and maintenance. Before operating a PIT, your workers must successfully complete training and be evaluated on their operating skills. OSHA also requires PITs to be examined at least daily before being placed into service. In addition, you need to have authorized personnel perform routine checks and preventive maintenance to keep PITs in safe operating condition.
Two safety and health topics, STFs and PITs, bubbled up as the toughest in a recent poll of warehouse operations. The top challenge was unpredicted.
Although distracted driving is often an avoidable issue on the roads, distracted driving claimed 3,308 lives in 2022, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. April is Distracted Driving Month, so it’s time to up your defenses by helping your commercial drivers keep their eyes on the road ahead.
Distracted driving happens when a driver engages in any activity that takes their eyes and mind off the road. The most common distractions include talking or texting on the phone, changing the radio, focusing on a navigation system, eating or drinking, trying to grab something from the passenger seat or back seat, changing clothes, etc.
These activities increase the risk of crash and should be avoided as much as possible. Remember, though, that a driver can only control their own behavior — what about all those other drivers on the road?
No matter how vigilant or how well trained a commercial driver is, their own behavior isn’t the only thing to worry about. Other drivers on the road may be one of the biggest risks good defensive drivers face. An effective way to counter this risk is to know how to identify a distracted driver.
Distracted drivers may:
The best offense is a good defense, right?
The four basic elements of defensive driving that drivers can use against distracted driving are:
A defensive driver should keep a constant visual scan, recognize potential hazards, decide on an appropriate response, and carry out the appropriate response. These are all tasks a driver is personally responsible for.
The best way to stay safe is to recognize and react appropriately to distracted drivers. Using the four basic elements of defensive driving will allow drivers to:
The 150 air-mile exemptions, which are in the regulations at 395.1(e)(1) and (2), allow a driver to use a time record in place of a log, provided that certain conditions are met. While this is possibly the most widely used hours-of-service exemption, it may be the most commonly misused exemption, as well.
To be able to use this logging exemption in 395.1(e)(1), the driver must:
The company must retain the time record and have it available for inspection for six months.
Need more info? View our ezExplanation on the 150 air-mile exception. |
If the driver cannot meet the terms of the exemption (he or she goes too far or works too many hours), the driver must complete a regular driver’s log for the day as soon as the exemption no longer applies.
If the driver has had to complete a log 8 or fewer days out of the last 30 days, the driver can use a paper log for the day. If the driver had to complete a log more than 8 days out of the last 30 days, the driver needs to use an electronic log for the day (unless one of the ELD exemptions applies, such as operating a vehicle older than model year 2000).
When a property-carrying driver is operating under the 150 air-mile exemption, the driver is also exempt from having to take the required 30-minute break (see 395.3(a)(3)(ii)).
If the driver began the day as a 150 air-mile driver and has driven more than 8 consecutive hours without a break, and something unexpected happens and the driver can no longer use the 150 air-mile exemption, the driver must stop and immediately take the 30-minute break as well as start logging. If the driver went outside of the 150 air-mile area before the driver had 8 hours of driving without a break from driving, the driver would be expected to take the break at the appropriate time.
Here are some of the common myths and misunderstandings about the 150 air-mile exemption:
The 150 air-mile exemption at 395.1(e)(2) only applies to drivers that: Operate property-carrying vehicles that do not require a CDL to operate, and Stay within the 150 air-miles of their work reporting location.
If the driver stays within the 150 air-mile radius of the work reporting location, and returns to the work reporting location within 14 hours on 5 of the last 7 days, and 16 hours on 2 of the last seven days, the driver is allowed to use a time record in place of a log.
If the driver does not meet the terms of the exception, the driver will need to complete a log for the day. If the driver had to log more than 8 days out of the last 30 days, the driver will need to use an electronic log for the day. All of the other issues discussed above would apply to these drivers as well.
If you have drivers that use these exemptions, you will need to check time records to make sure they are complying with the appropriate time limits. You will also need to check movement records to verify that the drivers using these exemptions are staying within the mandated area (within 150 air-miles of the work reporting location for the day).
If a driver is over the hours limit, or has gone too far, you need to verify that the submitted a log for the day, either paper or electronic, depending on how many days the driver had to log out of the previous 30 days.
During an audit, if it is discovered that your drivers are using these exemptions incorrectly, you will be cited for not having drivers’ logs when required. Each day this occurred will be another violation, so the fine could be rather large if you are not managing the use of these exemptions!
Maintaining compliance with proper recordkeeping ensures that commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) are safe and meet regulatory standards. The key aspects of recordkeeping for FMCSA annual inspections include:
FMCSA regulations mandate that every CMV undergo a periodic inspection at least once every 12 months. For expiration purposes, the 12-month period begins on the last day of the month after the inspection was completed. We’re often asked where this can be found in the regulations. It’s actually not in the regulations, but appears in the preamble to the final rule found in the Federal Register dated December 7, 1988.
Several states have vehicle inspection programs that meet the federal inspection standards outlined in Appendix A to Part 396. These state inspections can be used in lieu of the federal inspection, ensuring that CMVs comply with safety regulations. However, if a state inspection is used, check with your state regarding expiration. This expiration may be 90 days or 365 days from the date of the inspection, rather than the last day of the month, as with the federal requirement.
Inspections of vehicles registered in Canadian provinces or Mexico will be accepted as equivalent to the federal inspection for the U.S. These inspections must meet Canadian or Mexican standards to qualify.
A carrier must retain a report as proof of this inspection for any vehicle in their control. The report must include:
Additionally, the vehicle must carry proof of the most recent inspection, such as a sticker, report, or decal. If the report is used it should be a copy to prevent loss of the original. Decals and stickers on the outside of the vehicle provide simple visual verification of compliance.
Carriers are permitted to perform these inspections on company vehicles. The person doing the inspection must be qualified as outlined in 396.19. The qualifications include:
It‘s the responsibility of the motor carrier to retain evidence of the qualifications. The evidence must be kept for the time the inspector is completing the periodic inspections. If the inspector stops doing inspections or leaves the carrier, the evidence must be retained for one additional year.
Motor carriers are required to maintain detailed records of periodic inspections. This report must be retained for 14 months from the date of the inspection. It must be kept where the vehicle is housed or maintained. The report must be available for inspection on request by authorized officials.
If an outside vendor is performing the inspections, the records can be stored with them. In the event of an audit, it would be the carrier's responsibility to obtain the inspection form from the shop. Since the vendor is not being audited, they may not respond as quickly as needed to provide the information. The best practice would be to obtain a copy of the inspection for internal records upon completion of the inspection. This small step could go a long way toward staying compliant.
Key to remember: Keeping your records up to date and compliant will keep you prepared and reduce the risk of missing items during an audit.
One question that comes up when reviewing roadside inspection reports is, “What is the meaning of the letters that follow a violation of 392.2 on a roadside inspection report?”
A violation of 392.2 is a violation of a local or state law, regulation, or ordinance. These must be obeyed due to 392.2, which reads, “Every commercial motor vehicle must be operated in accordance with the laws, ordinances, and regulations of the jurisdiction in which it is being operated.”
The confusion is that there are no paragraphs in 392.2, so there technically should be no letters following that section. However, to inform the driver, carrier, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) what particular state or local law or regulation was involved, FMCSA has developed a system of suffix codes. The letters following “392.2” – the “suffix” — show which state or local law or regulation was involved.
When one of these codes is used, the officer should include a description of the specific violation in the “violation details” area on the actual inspection report. FYI: Summary roadside inspection reports (such as the ones visible in CSA’s SMS) do not show these details.
For more information, see our ezExplanation on Roadside Inspections. |
Not all of these state and local law or regulation violations are used by the FMCSA for scoring purposes. The Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Safety Measurement System (SMS) does not use the 392.2 violations that cannot be tied to crash causation. Here are a couple of examples: 392.2UCR Failure to pay UCR fee and 392.2W Size and weight are not used.
Below are the top 10392.2violations written during 2021. All of these violations are safety-related, and therefore used in the CSA SMS for scoring. The BASIC within the SMS the violation is scored in is shown following the violation description.
In general, FMCSA does not write traffic codes. They rely on local and state agencies to do that. When state or local traffic codes are violated, it appears on a roadside inspection report as a violation of 392.2, with a suffix indicating which traffic code was involved.
Time to spring into action: The new 2025 North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria (OOSC) goes into effect April 1, 2025.
Created and enforced by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), the OOSC is the guidance officers use to determine if a violation discovered during a roadside inspection makes the driver or vehicle an imminent hazard. If an imminent hazard is discovered, the violation must be corrected before the driver or vehicle can operate again.
Changes for 2025 include:
Several diagrams in the OOSC were also updated to clarify what parts are being addressed. Several inspection bulletins (which provide guidance to officers), as referenced in the OOSC, were also updated.
Back in October 2018, Laffon had a medical emergency and needed some time off under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Her leave lasted until November 15. Ten days after she returned to work, on November 26, her employer terminated her.
She sued, arguing that the employer retaliated against her because of her FMLA leave.
The catch? She didn't bring the suit until almost three years later.
No link between leave and termination
In court, the employer argued that there was no causal link between Laffon taking FMLA leave and her termination. Although the court documents aren't robust, they do reveal that the employer indicated that Laffon's allegations didn't show that her taking FMLA leave was a factor in the decision to terminate her. The documents showed only that the termination chronologically followed her leave.
The court agreed with the employer. It also agreed that Laffon failed to allege a willful violation of the FMLA, which would allow her to benefit from the FMLA's three-year statute of limitations.
Laffon appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit.
Statute of limitations
Under the FMLA, employees have two years from the date of the last event constituting the alleged violation for which they can bring a claim.
Those two years are extended to three years if the employer's actions were "willful." This means that an employee must show that the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its conduct violated the FMLA.
Ruling overturned
Fast forward to August 2023, when the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. It indicated that, based on Laffon's amended complaint and liberally construing the law, her allegations establish that her leave was causally connected to her termination and that the employer's action (her termination) was willful.
Glymph v. CT Corporation Systems, No. 22-35735, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, August 22, 2023.
Key to remember: Terminating an employee soon after returning from FMLA leave is risky, unless there is a clear, well-documented, non-leave-related reason. Case documents did not show such a clear reason, which can also increase the risk of a willful finding. Employees have time to file claims, even years.
Most employers familiar with the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) know that, as part of their response to employees who put them on notice of the need for leave, they may require a medical certification (except for bonding).
Employers also know they may ask employees for a second (and third) opinion and recertification, but not in every situation.
If employers doubt the validity of an initial certification, they may require the employee to get a second opinion. If, for example, an employee added a medical condition that the doctor didn’t list or altered the certification details provided by the doctor, that could warrant a second opinion.
Employers should document the reasons they’re questioning an initial certification before asking for a second opinion, which employers must pay for.
Second opinion requests are restricted to situations involving an employee’s or a family member’s serious health condition. Employers may not ask for second opinions when employees take leave for:
Employers also may not ask for second or third opinions on a fitness-for-duty certification. Employers use these to ensure employees are physically and mentally able to return to their job tasks.
When employees request leave for the first time in a new 12-month leave year period, employers may request a new initial certification, which resets the option of asking for a second opinion.
Employers may request recertifications now and then, but there are limits. Similar to second opinions, employers may not ask for recertifications when employees take leave for:
They also may not ask for a recertification on second and third opinions.
Key to remember: Employers may not ask for second opinions or recertifications in all situations.
Employers sometimes get tripped up on how to calculate the 1,250 hours worked eligibility criterion when employees need leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Does working overtime count toward the 1,250?
Recently, someone asked if overtime hours counted toward the 1,250 hours worked requirement (it does).
All hours actually worked apply to the 1,250, whether overtime or regular time, even if the overtime is not mandatory.
The 1,250 hours is calculated in relation to when the leave will begin, not when the employee puts an employer on notice of the need for leave.
Whether an employee is allowed to work overtime, however, is generally up to company policy. As far as pay goes, remember, if the employee is nonexempt (“hourly”) and works any overtime (mandatory or voluntary) the employee must be paid time and one-half for all hours worked over 40 within the workweek.
More about FMLA leave requirements
To be eligible to take FMLA leave, employees must:
Whether an employee has worked the minimum 1,250 hours is calculated based on determining compensable hours or work under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Calculating the 1,250 hours worked
When it comes to figuring out if an employee has worked at least 1,250 hours, it can get tricky. As was mentioned above, all hours worked, regular and overtime, must be counted.
Hours not worked should not be counted. The “not worked hours” include such time off as vacation time, sick leave, paid or unpaid holidays, or any other time in which an employee isn’t actually working — which can include disability, bereavement, FMLA and other forms of leave.
Once an employee meets the three eligibility criteria, including the 1,250 hours worked, for a particular leave reason, the employee remains eligible for the duration of the 12-month leave year period.
If the employee needs leave for another, different reason, eligibility would be recalculated.
Key to remember: All hours worked must be included in the 1,250 hours criterion when determining whether an employee is eligible for FMLA leave. Hours that aren’t worked (like vacation) are not included.
One of the most common questions involving the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that we see is: “Can ________ fill out the medical certification?”
This question stumps a lot of HR people and can be a little confusing.
It might be easier to start with who CAN’T fill out an FMLA certification. That includes your coworker, best friend, neighbor, or pet.
Jokes aside, often (but not always) a doctor fills out the FMLA certification, and since March 30 is “Doctors’ Day,” this is a great time to discuss this topic.
Employers aren’t required to use certifications, but if they do, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has five different certification forms to use for various FMLA leave situations.
The forms are as follows:
Let’s focus on the first two, as these are the most common ones HR administrators use.
The FMLA regulations describe the person who has the authority to fill out a certification as a “health care provider.” The good news is, the regulations include a lengthy list of medical professionals who fit this role.
Under the FMLA, a health care provider includes:
To be qualified to fill out FMLA forms, medical professionals must be authorized to practice in the state and perform within the scope of their practice. This means that the provider must be authorized to diagnose and treat physical or mental health conditions.
If an employee or an employee's family member is visiting another country, or a family member resides in another country, and a serious health condition develops, the employer must accept a medical certification from a health care provider who practices in that country. This includes second and third opinions.
If a medical certification from a foreign health care provider is not in English, the employee may be required to provide a written translation of the certification.
Key to remember: The FMLA regulations spell out which medical professionals can fill out certification forms.
The elimination of Executive Order (EO) 11246 brought a change to the federal labor law posters that banks need to display.
Before President Trump signed the “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Resorting Merit-Based Opportunity” executive order on January 21, 2025, banks and other financial institutions had to display the posters required by EO 11246. This included:
The extra postings were required because the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) considered banks and other financial institutions to be a government contractor when it obtained federal deposit insurance, acted as an issuing and paying agent for U.S. savings bonds and notes, or was a federal fund depository.
As a federal contractor, a bank was required to display the Know Your Rights and Pay Transparency postings required under EO 11246.
Because EO 11246 has been revoked under the executive order signed in January, banks no longer need to display the postings the law required. However, they still must display the postings required under other federal laws. The Pay Transparency posting is no longer required, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requires employers with 15 or more workers to display the Know Your Rights posting. As a result, banks with 15 or more employees still need to have the Know Your Rights posting on the wall.
In addition, a separate executive order requires banks to display the “Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act” posting.
Banks also need to display required state, local, and federal postings including:
Key to remember: Banks no longer need to display the Pay Transparency posting required under EO 11246, but must display the Know Your Rights Posting if they have 15 or more employees. They must also display other required federal, state, and local postings.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics reported in July 2024 that there are 8.2 million job openings in the U.S., but only 7.2 million unemployed workers.
With that in mind, employers might choose to hang onto employees even if they’re under performing. But what about when complaints are rolling in from different angles? Take, for example, a lackluster supervisor who’s annoying employees and disappointing customers.
An employer could be hesitant to let the supervisor go, especially if there’s no documentation backing up claims of misconduct. The employer must weigh their options to decide if putting the supervisor on a performance improvement plan (PIP) or moving right to termination is the ideal choice.
At-will employment
For starters, in most states employers may terminate an employee at-will, meaning they can fire employees for pretty much any reason as long as it doesn’t discriminate against someone in a protected class based on sex, age, race, religion, etc. Employers also cannot terminate in retaliation for an employee making a claim of harassment, discrimination, or safety concerns.
Aside from these limits, employers can terminate employees for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.
PIP or terminate
Deciding whether to put an employee on a PIP or terminate must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
A PIP is usually for job performance issues (hence, performance improvement plan). This could mean anything from not making enough sales to being inept at the job’s essential functions. If job performance doesn’t improve under the PIP, termination may be the end result depending on company policies and practices.
Even if an employee has job performance issues, the employer can terminate without going through the PIP process first, unless the usual process is to implement a PIP with employees who have had similar problems. In that case, not doing a PIP could be seen as discrimination against an employee, especially if the person falls into a protected class.
Workplace misconduct, however, is another situation altogether. This could be anything from a one-off poor joke to pervasive harassment. Snapping at customers or coworkers (or worse), for example, is a conduct issue. An employer could issue a warning or move right to termination if the behavior is clearly illegal or a serious threat to workplace safety.
Read more: ezExplanation on discharging employees |
Termination tips
If an employer decides to terminate, they should treat the employee as respectfully as possible during the termination process. Also, an employer should carefully and clearly communicate the job-related reasons for the termination to avoid any hint of discrimination. Lastly, an employer should document the reasons and reiterate the steps taken leading up to the termination and keep those records handy in case the employee files a wrongful termination lawsuit.
Key to remember: Employers sometimes struggle when making termination decisions. Having a process in place and documenting steps along the way can help if a case lands in court.
The U.S. Department of Labor has announced several senior appointees under Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer. Among the appointments, several are especially relevant for workplace safety professionals who are keeping an eye on OSHA regulations and compliance.
New leadership at OSHA and the Department of Labor often brings shifts in enforcement priorities, regulatory interpretations, and guidance. It’s best for the safety manager to stay informed on who’s making the calls—because their influence can shape everything from inspection trends to policy rollouts.
Amanda Wood Laihow has been appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of OSHA.
Safety pros may recognize her name—she served as a commissioner on the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission during the first Trump Administration. Her background includes labor policy work with the National Association of Manufacturers and legal roles within several government agencies. Laihow’s experience suggests a business-friendly, compliance-through-collaboration approach may be on the horizon.
Michael Asplen joins as OSHA’s Senior Policy Advisor.
He brings a policy-heavy background, having worked closely with Laihow and at the National Association of Manufacturers and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. His influence may shape how OSHA interprets safety regulations and industry feedback, especially as businesses navigate compliance under shifting priorities.
Beyond OSHA, several other appointments are worth watching.
Jonathan Snare returns as Deputy Solicitor of Labor.
With prior experience as Acting Assistant Secretary for OSHA, Snare’s return could signal continuity in legal interpretations and enforcement strategies under OSHA’s umbrella. Elisabeth Messenger will lead the Office of Labor-Management Standards. This is a role that often intersects with workplace policies and union-related matters.
Brian Walsh joins the Office of Disability Employment Policy.
Under this position, the initiatives tied to accessible workplaces and inclusive safety programs could get a fresh look.
Changes in leadership often influence how OSHA conducts inspections, issues citations, and prioritizes industries or hazards. For example, a more employer-centric team might emphasize compliance assistance, voluntary protection programs (VPP), and reduced regulatory burdens.
Expect updates to enforcement bulletins, possible delays (or accelerations) in proposed rules, and potentially new compliance tools aimed at helping businesses meet safety standards without heavy-handed penalties.
J. J. Keller always keeps a close eye on how these appointments shape OSHA’s strategy—and what that means for the frontlines of workplace safety. Stay tuned for updates and actionable tips for staying compliant, efficient, and ahead of the curve.
Key to remember: U.S. Department of Labor announced new senior Trump Administration appointees, which could influence the OSHA regulations and enforcement policies.
An emergency can be a significant challenge for any organization to manage. Emergencies can cause severe harm to employees or extensive damage to property, potentially resulting in long-term negative impacts on the organization, its employees, and other stakeholders.
Given the potential destruction caused by emergencies, J. J. Keller decided to host an interactive virtual conference titled "Ready, Set, Respond." This event’s goal was to gather participants to discuss various challenges, successes, and best practices to better prepare their organizations to mitigate the inevitable effects of emergencies before, during, and after.
The one-hour event began with experts presenting steps for emergency planning and preparation. The discussion covered regulatory requirements and effective planning tips, including:
To kick things off, participants were asked, "How would you rate your organization's emergency preparedness?" Most participants rated their organization as good to fair. However, some even rated their organization as poor when it comes to being prepared for the unexpected.
Additionally, the participants were asked about their organization's readiness to continue business operations “after” an emergency. While many participants rated their organization's readiness as good to fair, there is a clear indication that improvements are needed. Nearly 20% of respondents felt their organizations were not sufficiently prepared to handle the challenging outcomes presented by an unexpected emergency. However, on the bright note, nine percent shared that their organizations were excellently prepared for the aftereffects of an emergency.
During the interactive portion of our event, participants were divided into three groups, each focusing on a different stage of emergency preparedness: before, during, and after. Each team dove into discussions about their organizations’ level of preparedness and tackled the following questions:
The groups provided excellent solutions and best practices for various challenges, focusing on organizational communication and culture, training, and coordinating with external resources for preparation and emergency response activities.
Communication and culture were key topics in many discussions, both for preparing for emergencies and handling them afterward. One participant emphasized the importance of hazard analysis to understand the risks workers face and prioritizing emergencies.
Likewise, they emphasized work practices like performing job safety assessments, completing workplace safety audits, and developing safety committees help build a stronger safety culture, enhancing worker safety and response during emergencies.
Training was a consistent theme throughout the conference. This included general information, specific equipment training such as fire extinguishers and alarm systems and developing muscle memory through regular fire drills and other practice methods to ensure appropriate responses in emergencies.
One highlight was a best practice shared by a participant: using escape rooms for scenario-based emergency training. They found this method more engaging than traditional training sessions, although they did note that some trainees felt hesitant due to a lack of confidence in successfully navigating the escape room
Overall, the participants indicated that the advantages of this type of training, from the perspective of being prepared to act appropriately in an emergency, outweigh the challenges.
Seeking help and assistance from other experts and local stakeholders can quickly improve the emergency preparedness of an organization.
One participant suggested building a strong relationship with local response organizations, like fire departments, since they're equally invested in your emergency preparedness. The better they know your organization, the faster and more effectively they can respond to emergencies. Also, these coordination efforts also impact keeping the responders safe.
The group also discussed what information these response organizations would need. Depending on your organization, they might be interested in the locations of hazardous materials, muster points, fire alarms, and sprinkler systems. It was noted that some response organizations have software to quickly access this information during emergencies.
Additionally, identifying and working with other local organizations was mentioned as a benefit in providing mutual aid, support, and assistance as a community working together to ensure the safety and well-being of its families and businesses.
Key to remember: Emergency preparedness at work is vital to protect employees and property. Event participants emphasized planning ahead, effective training, clear communication, and collaborating with community resources to minimize the impact of emergencies on the organization
The unexpected start-up of machines or equipment, or the release of stored energy, can cause serious injury and even death to employees. And unless you’re doing all 10 of the steps below correctly, then yes – you’re probably doing it wrong.
Failure to control hazardous energy during servicing or maintenance activities accounts for nearly 10 percent of serious incidents in many industries, according to OSHA.
Lockout/tagout procedures can prevent accidental exposures to hazardous energy. The primary energy sources in construction and general industry include:
An accidental release of stored energy could cause unintentional start-ups. This leads to potential injuries such as electrical shock, crushing, burns, and other serious or fatal incidents.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) mandates strict LOTO procedures to safeguard employees. Here are 10 essential steps for effectively implementing lockout/tagout on construction and general industry jobsites.
A well-documented energy control program is the foundation of lockout/tagout safety. Construction companies should create clear policies and procedures for controlling hazardous energy and ensure strict enforcement. VisitJ. J. Keller Safety Management Suite to access over 125 safety policies pre-written templates, including Lockout/Tagout and Hazardous Energy Control.
When machinery can be locked out, a physical lockout device must be used to prevent accidental activation. If the equipment cannot be locked out, additional safety measures must be in place to ensure worker protection.
If machinery lacks a lockout option, an effective tagout system should be implemented. Tagout devices must provide the same level of safety as lockout devices, warning employees not to operate the equipment.
Energy control procedures should be written, detailed, and regularly reviewed to ensure they remain effective. These procedures must outline the steps required for shutting down, isolating, and securing hazardous energy sources.
All lockout/tagout devices must be standardized in appearance, durable, and substantial enough to prevent accidental removal. Only authorized devices should be used to ensure consistency and reliability.
Each lockout/tagout device must be labeled to identify the employee who applied it. This helps prevent accidental removal and ensures accountability in the lockout/tagout process.
To maintain safety, only the individual who applied a lockout/tagout device should remove it. If removal by another person is necessary, strict procedures should be followed to ensure the safety of all employees. See our FAQ for more information: Can a lock be cut off if the person who applied it isn’t there to remove it?
Regular inspections of lockout/tagout practices help identify potential issues and ensure compliance with OSHA standards. Annual audits should confirm that all energy control procedures are followed correctly.
Proper training is crucial for effective lockout/tagout implementation. Employers must ensure that all workers understand their roles, responsibilities, and the risks associated with hazardous energy. Retraining should occur periodically, when new procedures are developed and whenever new hazards arise.
Additional lockout/tagout provisions apply in specific scenarios, such as:
Key to remember: By following these 10 steps, you can create a safer work environment and maintain compliance with OSHA regulations.
Any task can seem complicated when there’s confusion about the equipment used. When dealing with potentially life-saving procedures, like lockout/tagout (LOTO), understanding safety devices becomes even more critical. Demystifying LOTO safety devices and their use can make even the most anxiety-ridden worker more confident.
OSHA estimates that 120 workers are killed and another 50,000 suffer injuries each year from failure to comply with LOTO requirements. During the servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment, workers can be seriously injured or killed if hazardous energy is not properly controlled. Regrettably, unexpected startup and the release of stored energy continues to result in preventable injuries such as lacerations, amputations, fractures, burns, and fatalities every year.
However, proper LOTO programs can prevent these unfortunate incidents when workers understand the intent, procedures, and equipment used to control hazardous energy. Going beyond just locks; prevention starts with a thorough understanding of the equipment used for LOTO.
Some LOTO devices, like locks and tags, are common workplace features. However, some devices may be unfamiliar to workers, thus creating confusion as to how these devices are used. And all too often, confusion can lead to non-compliance. Let’s clear up some confusion on some of these devices!
This list isn’t all encompassing, but hopefully clarifies some specialized LOTO devices. Regardless of the devices chosen, the main goal must always be to use the LOTO devices that will prevent energization during the entire maintenance and repair processes. Lives depend on it!
Key to remember: Adding an understanding of LOTO devices to employee training is crucial for compliance and worker safety during service and maintenance activities.
Ever since OSHA published its Trade Release on December 11, 2023, people have been scratching their heads about the “new” PPE requirement.
But here’s the thing. There isn’t a new requirement for “helmets” instead of hard hats.
So where’s the confusion? And what is actually required?
OSHA released a Safety and Health Bulletin (SHIB 11-22-2023) on November 22, 2023, detailing the key differences and benefits of using modern safety helmets over traditional hard hats.
And just a few weeks later, in the December 11, 2023 Trade Release, the Agency announced it would now require its inspectors to wear Type II head protection, which is also commonly referred to as safety helmets.
The November 22, 2023 SHIB discussed two main benefits of choosing modern safety helmets over traditional hard hats -- the construction of materials and the use of chinstraps.
Construction of Materials: | The SHIB first explained that one of the benefits of safety helmets lies in their construction materials. While hard hats are made from hard plastics, safety helmets incorporate a combination of materials, including lightweight composites, fiberglass, and advanced thermoplastics. Such materials can help enhance the impact resistance of the helmets but also include the added benefit of reducing the overall weight of the helmet. This reduces neck strain and improves comfort during extended use. |
Use of Chinstraps: | The SHIB also discussed the potential benefits of chinstraps used in conjunction with Type II safety helmets. The general idea here is that chinstraps can be helpful in maintaining the position of the safety helmet and protecting the worker’s head in the event of a slip, trip, or fall. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, head injuries accounted for nearly 6% of non-fatal occupational injuries involving days away from work. About 20% of those were caused by slips, trips, and falls. |
And while OSHA has recognized the benefits of Type II safety helmets, and is actively taking steps to protect its own employees, it’s important to understand that there is not a new requirement for employers to make the switch to safety helmets.
That being said, a growing number of employers have recognized the benefits of added head protection and are choosing to use Type II helmets for their workers. In addition, some clients are starting to contractually require their construction contractors to make the switch as well.
Hard hats will have a Type I or Type II rating on the manufacturer’s sticker. These markings are based on ANSI Z89.1’s impact ratings.
Type I hard hats protect from objects or impacts from the top center area of the hard hat and are often used in work areas with no lateral head impact hazards.
Type II hard hats, on the other hand, offers protection from both top and lateral impacts and objects and is often found on construction job sites or complex general industry settings where workers face multiple head contact exposures.
Hard hats are classified based on their level of voltage protection. See the chart below.
Class G – (General) low voltage protection. Class E – (Electrical) high voltage protection. Class C – (Conductive) no voltage protection. |
Employers should conduct a job hazard analysis and/or a PPE assessment to determine which style hard hat is best for their workers. In general, OSHA recommends the use of Type II safety helmets at the following locations:
1. Construction Sites: For construction sites, especially those with high risks of falling objects and debris, impacts from equipment, or slips, trips, and falls, safety helmets have enhanced impact resistance and additional features that offer superior protection compared to the components and construction of traditional hard hats.
2. Oil and Gas Industry: In these sectors where workers face multiple hazards, including potential exposure to chemicals and severe impacts, safety helmets with additional features can provide comprehensive protection.
3. Working from Heights: For tasks or jobs that involve working from heights, safety helmets offer protection of the entire head and include features that prevent the safety helmet from falling off.
4. Electrical Work: For tasks involving electrical work or proximity to electrical hazards, safety helmets with non-conductive materials (Class G and Class E) provide protection to prevent electrical shocks. However, some traditional hard hats also offer electrical protection.
5. High-Temperature Environments: In high temperatures or where there is exposure to molten materials, safety helmets with advanced heat-resistant properties can provide additional protection to workers.
Key to remember: While there isn’t a new requirement for safety helmets, employers should review their workplace hazards to determine which style of hard hat will best protect their employees.
A new executive order from the Trump administration sets in motion a campaign pledge to weed out regulations deemed overly burdensome or constructed on potentially shaky legal grounds.
The order requires federal agencies to review their regulations and report back to the White House by April 20, 60 days after the order was issued. Under the order, agencies are tasked with identifying rules that, among others:
The priority is on “significant” rules, generally considered to be those with an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
Once the regulations have been identified, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will work with agency leaders to:
Executive order 14219, titled “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative,” was issued February 19, 2025.
The order exempts regulations related to the military, national security, foreign affairs, immigration, and the federal workforce.
It also directs agencies to consult with DOGE and OMB on any potential new regulations to ensure they comply with all of President Trump’s executive orders to date, including orders to:
The OMB is expected to issue guidance to help agencies determine how best to implement the executive orders.