86 FR 62917 Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (20-10.B)

What's an environmental compliance review?

An environmental compliance review is a structured evaluation of how a proposed change could affect a facility's environmental obligations.

Many organizations incorporate environmental reviews into an environmental management system (EMS) or formal change-management process. These procedures help ensure that environmental obligations are evaluated before operational changes are implemented. The updated ISO 14001 standard places greater emphasis on managing changes that may affect environmental performance, reinforcing the need to assess environmental impacts before decisions are made.

The review doesn't need to be complicated. In many cases, it involves determining whether the change could affect air permits, wastewater discharges, stormwater permits, hazardous waste management, chemical reporting, spill prevention requirements, or other environmental programs.

The goal is to identify environmental impacts before a change is implemented rather than after a regulator, auditor, or inspector discovers a problem.

Production increases

Increasing production is often viewed as a business decision rather than an environmental one. However, greater production may increase air emissions, wastewater generation, chemical usage, and waste generation.

Facilities should evaluate whether higher throughput could affect permit limits, reporting thresholds, or compliance obligations before production levels increase.

New chemicals or raw materials

A new chemical can trigger a wide range of environmental requirements.

Changes in raw materials may affect hazardous waste determinations, emergency planning requirements, air emissions calculations, Toxics Release Inventory reporting, spill prevention planning, or wastewater characteristics.

Before purchasing or introducing a new chemical, facilities should evaluate its environmental implications and ensure required controls are in place.

Equipment replacements and upgrades

Many organizations assume replacing equipment is simply a maintenance activity. In reality, equipment changes can have environmental consequences.

Replacing a boiler, coating operation, storage tank, dust collector, scrubber, or process equipment may affect emissions, waste streams, monitoring requirements, or permit applicability. Even when equipment serves the same function, environmental impacts should be evaluated before installation.

Process modifications

Changing how a product is manufactured can create environmental consequences even when production levels stay the same.

New process steps, altered operating conditions, different fuels, or modified treatment systems can affect emissions, waste generation, water usage, and permit conditions. Process changes should be reviewed to determine whether existing permits and operating procedures remain appropriate.

Facility expansions

Building additions, new production lines, warehouse expansions, and site development projects often involve environmental considerations beyond construction activities.

Organizations should evaluate potential impacts on air permits, stormwater management, wastewater infrastructure, storage capacity, and environmental monitoring programs before expansion projects begin.

Changes in waste management practices

Facilities occasionally change waste vendors, storage practices, recycling programs, treatment methods, or waste handling procedures to improve efficiency or reduce costs.

While these changes may appear administrative, they can affect generator status, accumulation practices, recordkeeping obligations, and waste determinations. Environmental personnel should review proposed changes before implementation.

New products or services

New products often require new materials, equipment, or processes that may affect existing environmental obligations.

Contractor activities

Contractor activities involving chemicals, waste management, tank cleaning, painting, excavation, demolition, or maintenance may create environmental compliance implications that warrant review.

Property and infrastructure changes

Changes to storage areas, containment systems, drainage patterns, tanks, or utilities can affect stormwater exposure and other environmental obligations.

Acquisitions and ownership changes

Acquiring a facility or business can introduce new permits, reporting obligations, and compliance responsibilities that should be evaluated during due diligence.

Train employees to recognize when a review may be needed

Environmental departments cannot review changes they never hear about.

Engineering, maintenance, operations, purchasing, project management, and production personnel are often the first to learn about proposed changes. Providing basic awareness training can help these groups recognize situations that may have environmental implications.

Employees don't need to become environmental experts. Instead, they should know when to notify EHS and ask whether a compliance review is warranted. A simple "check with EHS before proceeding" expectation can prevent significant compliance problems and reduce the likelihood that environmental requirements will be discovered too late.

Key to remember: Many environmental compliance issues begin with an operational change. Establishing a process to identify and review changes before implementation can help organizations avoid permit problems, reporting errors, and unexpected regulatory obligations.

Used oil management starts in the shop

Many maintenance departments generate used oil from equipment servicing, vehicle maintenance, and hydraulic system repairs. While used oil can often be managed under streamlined regulations, improper handling can quickly create compliance problems.

Common issues include storing used oil in unlabeled containers, mixing used oil with hazardous waste, and failing to address leaks from storage containers. Even small mistakes can increase disposal costs or change how the waste must be managed.

Maintenance personnel can help reduce these risks by ensuring used oil containers remain closed when not in use, are properly labeled, and are routinely inspected for signs of leakage or deterioration.

Spill response depends on employees closest to the release

When a spill occurs, maintenance staff members are often among the first employees on scene.

Their actions during the first few minutes can affect both environmental impacts and regulatory obligations. Quickly stopping the source of a release, protecting drains, and containing spilled material can prevent a minor incident from becoming a reportable event.

Facilities should ensure maintenance personnel understand spill response procedures, know where response equipment is located, and recognize when environmental staff or emergency responders must be notified.

Even facilities with formal spill response plans depend on maintenance employees to implement many of the initial response actions.

Air compliance requires reliable equipment

Many facilities rely on air pollution control devices such as baghouses, scrubbers, thermal oxidizers, and dust collection systems to comply with permit requirements.

Environmental managers may be responsible for reporting emissions and maintaining permit records, but maintenance staff members are often responsible for keeping control equipment operating properly.

A failed pressure gauge, malfunctioning fan, broken duct connection, or neglected preventive maintenance task can affect emissions performance and potentially result in permit deviations.

Facilities should ensure maintenance programs include environmental control equipment and that maintenance personnel understand which equipment has environmental significance.

Tanks and containment need routine attention

Storage tanks and secondary containment systems are another area where maintenance and environmental responsibilities overlap.

Maintenance personnel may also maintain stormwater controls, drainage structures, and outdoor storage areas that affect permit compliance.

Routine inspections can identify corrosion, damaged coatings, leaking fittings, deteriorated hoses, and cracks before they become larger problems. These conditions may not seem urgent from an operational perspective, but they can increase the risk of releases and regulatory violations.

Facilities should establish inspection procedures, clearly define responsibilities, and document findings. A simple inspection program can often identify problems early, reducing both environmental risk and repair costs.

Communication helps prevent violations

Many environmental compliance issues occur when operational changes are made without considering environmental impacts.

New equipment, replacement tanks, process modifications, and maintenance projects can affect air emissions, waste generation, chemical storage, and spill prevention requirements. Environmental staff may not become aware of these changes until after installation.

Regular communication between maintenance and environmental personnel can help identify potential compliance concerns before work begins. In many cases, a short conversation during project planning can prevent significant compliance challenges later.

Building a partnership between maintenance and environmental teams

Environmental compliance is most effective when it's integrated into daily operations. Maintenance teams often have the best understanding of equipment conditions, storage systems, and operational changes occurring throughout a facility.

Environmental awareness training, maintenance involvement in inspections, and regular communication can strengthen compliance programs and identify problems sooner.

Environmental managers bring regulatory expertise. Maintenance personnel bring operational knowledge. Together, they create a stronger foundation for compliance than either group can achieve alone.

Key to remember: Environmental compliance isn't solely an EHS responsibility. Maintenance staff members play a critical role in preventing spills, managing used oil, maintaining compliance equipment, and identifying problems before they become violations.

The basics of logging exemptions

To be able to use this logging exemption in 395.1(e)(1), the driver must:

• Stay within 150 air-miles of the work reporting location for the day (draw a 150 air-mile radius circle around the work reporting location for the day — the driver must stay within this circle),
• Be back to — and released from — the work reporting location for his/her 8- or 10-hour break within 14 hours, and
• Include the starting and ending times for the day and the total hours on duty on the time record for the day.

The company must retain the time record and have it available for inspection for six months.

What if the driver goes too far or works too many hours?

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).

30-minute break exemption

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.

Common myths

Here are some of the common myths and misunderstandings about the 150 air-mile exemption:

• The driver must have the time records in the vehicle. Myth. The driver simply needs to explain to an officer during a roadside inspection that he/she does not have logs due to operating under the 150 air-mile exemption and that the required time records are back at the carrier’s office (just telling the officer, “I don’t have any logs” will lead to a violation, so the driver needs to know to provide the full explanation).
• The driver must log the previous seven days if he/she had been using this exemption and suddenly can’t. Myth. If the driver cannot use the exemption on one particular day, that is the only day the driver must use a regular log (either paper or electronic).
• Passenger-carrying drivers and drivers hauling hazardous materials cannot use this exemption. Myth. There are no restrictions on the use of this exemption, so any commercial driver can use it.
• A driver that crosses state lines cannot use this exemption. Myth. As this exemption appears in the Federal Motor Carrier Administration (FMCSA) regulations, it can be used by interstate drivers.
• Only drivers that operate out of a “company terminal” can use the 150 air-mile exemption. Myth. As long as the driver makes it back to the work reporting location for the day within the appropriate number of hours, the driver can use the exemption.
• Drivers that move from one jobsite to another every few weeks cannot use this exemption. Myth. If a driver that normally uses this exemption switches work reporting locations, the day the driver switches work reporting locations is the only day the driver cannot use the exemption.
• Drivers covered by this exemption are also exempt from the driver qualification (licensing and medical cards), driving, and vehicle inspection requirements. Myth. The only rules the driver is exempt from are the logging requirement in 395.8 and the 30-minute break requirement in 395.3.
• The driver cannot drive more than 150 miles for the day. Myth. The driver can drive as many miles as he/she wants to or needs to, as long as the driver stays within the 150 air-mile radius circle and gets back to the work reporting location within the appropriate number of hours.
• If a 150 air-mile driver gets into a vehicle with an ELD, the driver must use it. Myth. The carrier can have the driver log in and have the driver entered into the system as an “exempt driver,” or the carrier can request that the driver not log into the device and then attach a comment to the unassigned driving time generated by the driver’s movements. The comment would need to explain that the driver using the vehicle was a 150 air-mile driver who submitted a time record. It is up to the carrier to decide which option to use. If stopped for a roadside inspection, the driver will need to be able to explain to the inspector that he/she is an exempt driver using the 150 air-mile exemption, so using the electronic log is not required.

What’s different with the ‘150 air-mile non-CDL property-carrying drivers’

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.

Managing the use

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.

Verifying compliance is important

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!

Limitations

• Dangerous Goods Carried by Passengers or Crew (2.3)— Provisions for battery-powered mobility aids have been revised to include reference to the guidance on the end-to-end processes associated with the carriage of mobility aids.

Packing

The following packing instructions have been updated:

• 5.2.0.9 - Added a water capacity limit for non-refillable cylinders containing a flammable gas, limited to a water capacity not exceeding 1.25 L.
• PI 952 - Revised to include reference to "equipment."
• PI 954 - Clarified the rules for marking overpacks containing dry ice. The total net quantity of dry ice in the overpack must be marked on the outside of the overpack.

Packaging specifications and performance tests

• 6.0.3 - Clarified the requirements and formatting for UN specification marks on packages.

Documentation

• 8.1.6.9.2, Step 6 – Added a note to "reinforce that there is no requirement for the type, number and net quantity in inner packagings within the outer packaging of a combination packaging to be shown" on the shipping papers (Shippers Declaration for Dangerous Goods).

Radioactive materials

• 10.8.3.9.1—Added an additional example of the description for the first sequence of information on the Shipper's Declaration to address where a radioactive material has a subsidiary hazard, and the proper shipping name must be supplemented by the technical or chemical name.
• 10.8.6—Added two examples to show how radioactive materials with a subsidiary hazard should be described and how packages in an overpack should be shown.

Appendices

IATA has added a new appendix to the list of appendices in the DGR. Appendix H includes a list of changes IATA will make to the 2025 IATA DGR. IATA added Appendix H so that shippers and carriers have time to prepare for the substantial updates that are coming for 2025. Some of the changes include:

• Adding an exception for data loggers and cargo trackers with installed lithium batteries.
• Modifying the exception for COVID-19 vaccines to now apply to all pharmaceutical products.
• Adding a new classification for sodium ion batteries.
• Updating the list of dangerous goods and special provisions.
• Amending and adding several packing instructions.
• Revising the "lithium battery mark", which will be known as the "battery mark" in the future.

Making sure you are keeping up with these regulatory changes and preparing for future updates is extremely important if you want to avoid costly delays, fines, and lost revenue. Keep your hazmat employees up to speed and inform them of any changes they need to be aware of.

Key to Remember: IATA updates their DGR every year and changes to the 2024 IATA DGR become effective on January 1, 2024.

New severity tables are here

The FMCSA issued a new set of CSA violation severity tables on January 19, 2023. It includes the addition of 395.24(d) under the HOS Compliance category and indicates that the violation only affects motor carriers, not drivers.

The addition was announced in December but the fact that drivers’ scores are not affected was an unknown until the new severity tables were released.

The change applies to violations received on and after December 1, 2022.

Transfer is required

During a roadside inspection, drivers using ELDs must be able to transfer their logs to the inspector electronically. If logs cannot be transferred, officers will rely on the display screen or a printout to verify the driver’s compliance, but the driver may be cited for violating 395.24(d):

“Driver use of ELD. On request by an authorized safety official, a driver must produce and transfer from an ELD the driver’s hours-of-service records in accordance with the instruction sheet provided by the motor carrier.”

Out of 74 hours-of-service violations tracked in CSA, a violation of 395.24(d) is one of only five that will not affect a driver’s personal CSA scores. Those five violations are seen to be out of the driver’s control.

• Your ELDs are capable of transferring the log data, and
• Your drivers know how to do it.

Drivers have CSA scores?

Yes, drivers are assigned their own CSA scores. However:

• The scores are not available to the public, only to enforcement officials.
• The scores are used only during the course of an audit or investigation.

Like motor carriers, drivers who have high CSA scores may be targeted with an intervention (such as fines) following an audit of their employer.

Key to remember: Violations for failing to transfer ELD data will not harm drivers’ CSA scores, but they do carry three points for the motor carrier.

The case 

In early September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) view of employer dress code policies adopted in 2022. 

In the case, a union representing workers in a New York City location of a national coffeehouse chain challenged these three parts of the company’s dress code policy: 

1. In addition to company-approved or issued pins, cafe employees may wear on their apron “one reasonably sized and placed button or pin that identifies a particular labor organization or a partner’s support for that organization, except if it interferes with safety or threatens to harm customer relations or otherwise unreasonably interferes with the company’s public image.” 
2. Employees are “not permitted to wear buttons or pins that advocate a political, religious or personal issue.” 
3. While employee shirts may have a small manufacturer logo, they may not have “other colors, designs, logos or writings” other than those pre-approved by the company. 

The Second Circuit refused to enforce the NLRB’s findings that these policies were unlawful, reasoning that the NLRB’s reliance on its decision in Tesla, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 131 (Aug. 29, 2022), misapplies precedent and rests on “erroneous legal foundations.”  

Finding the right balance 

In Tesla, the NLRB adopted the presumption that all employer dress code policies that limit an employee’s right to display union insignia are presumed to be unlawful. The Second Circuit now joins the Fifth Circuit in refusing to enforce Tesla. The Second Circuit said that Tesla was inconsistent with precedent.    

Referencing U.S. Supreme Court precedent from Republic Aviation, 324 U.S. 793 (1945), the Second Circuit urged a return to the balancing test between “the undisputed right of self-organization assured to employees  …  and the equally undisputed right of employers to maintain discipline in their establishments.” 

The court added that employees have the right to wear items that relate to unionization and other protected matters at work, but employers aren’t prevented from making and enforcing reasonable rules covering the conduct of employees on company time, because “working time is for work.”  

The Second Circuit sent the case back to the NLRB asking the board to “apply a more evenly measured balancing test” and suggested what to consider in its analysis, including:  

• How much the rule limits employees’ Section 7 rights (i.e., whether the employer enforces a full or partial ban on union insignia during working time);
• Whether the employer’s policy is neutral on its face, nondiscriminatory, and consistently enforced; and  
• The context, or legitimate business reasons underlying the rule.  

The Second Circuit also addressed how much weight courts must give NLRB decisions. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, courts aren't required to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of the law it administers. 

Takeaways for employers 

The decision gives employers in the Second and Fifth Circuits more leeway to draft neutral dress code policies that limit union insignia.  

Employers should also be aware that the legal standard may continue to change. In August, the NLRB’s General Counsel listed dress codes and a possible reversal of Tesla as future priorities. Employers should, therefore, review appearance policies carefully, document the reasons for restrictions, and consult counsel before limiting union-related clothing or insignia.  

Key to remember: A federal appeals court rejected the NLRB’s presumption that dress-code limits on union insignia are automatically unlawful. 

Starbucks Reserve Roastery v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 24-3168 (2nd Cir. September 2, 2026) 

Where the danger lies

The three key terms in arc safety are electric arc, arc flash, and arc blast. These terms are often confused with one another or used interchangeably; however, they are quite different phenomena. Understanding their distinction is essential for effective safe work practices.

• Electric arc: The breakdown of electrical insulation allowing current to reach the air or take another unintended path.
• Arc flash: The intense light and heat generated during electrical arcing. The flash is essentially an electrical explosion that occurs when an electrical current leaves its intended path and travels through the air from one conductor to another or to the ground.
• Arc blast: The extreme pressure wave created from the electric arc. The blast follows shortly after the flash and is the result of vaporized copper expanding at an alarming rate.

An electrical arcing incident occurs when a short circuit an electric current is sustained outside of its normal conductive pathway like through the air (think: lightning). Although air is usually clean and non-conductive, it becomes conductive when particles gain or lose electrons while floating in the air. The change in electrons creates plasma, which gives the current a new and extremely dangerous path which results in a flash followed by a blast.

Respect the numbers[

The numbers associated with an electrical arcing incident should, alone, be enough to show why arc flash and blast safety matters:

• Temperatures during an arc flash can reach up to 35,000°F which is approximately 4 times hotter than the surface of the sun.
• During an arc blast, copper vaporizes and expands by a factor of 67,000 times.
• Pressure from an arc blast can reach up to 2,000 pounds of force which is the equivalent of a full-grown draft horse plowing into a person’s body.
• Blasts from an arc flash can propel molten metal and debris at up to 700 miles per hour, which is faster than the cruising speed of a commercial airplane.
• More than 2,000 people a year are treated in burn centers for arc flash-related injuries, resulting in 6 to 8 months of lost work time.
• Penalties for arc flash-related injuries can be over $160,000 per violation.
• Average medical expenses for an arc-flash survivor is $1.5 million with an additional $5 million to $10 million in litigation settlements.

Key Elements of Arc Flash Safety

Prioritizing arc flash and blast safety demonstrates a commitment to employee well-being and operational integrity. An effective arc flash safety program will include:

• Conducting a thorough arc flash risk assessment to identify potential hazards, calculate incident energy levels, and label equipment accordingly.
• Implementing engineering design solutions such as arc-resistant equipment;
• Maintaining electrical systems and good housekeeping to reduce the likelihood of faults that lead to arc flashes or dust accumulation that can provide a travel path for rogue arcs.
• Providing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), such as flame-resistant clothing, face shields, and insulated gloves, based on the calculated risk level and enforcing employee use.
• Delivering regular training on electrical hazards, safe work practices, and emergency response procedures.
• Encouraging employees to report electrical hazards, safety issues, near misses, and incidents so preventative measures can be taken.
• Ensuring compliance with OSHA and consensus standards like NFPA 70E so safety measures meet legal requirements and industry best practices.

Key to remember: Electrical arcing incidents kill hundreds of workers each year and can cause catastrophic injuries, property damage, and downtime. Understanding the hazards of electric arcs, arc flash, and arc blast is essential for implementing the right protective measures in the workplace.

Watch for pressure points

Certain parts of a work shift can create conditions that increase the likelihood of distraction, fatigue, or rushing:

• Start of shift: Employees may not immediately recognize what has changed since the previous shift, leading to missed updates, overlooked hazards, or incomplete inspections.
• Before breaks or lunch: The desire to finish "just one more thing" can lead to rushing, skipped procedural steps, or leaving work in an unsafe condition.
• Mid-to-late shift: Fatigue, heat, and repetitive work can accumulate throughout the shift, increasing physical and mental strain.
• End of shift: Cleanup, production goals, and shift handoffs can all compete for attention at the same time.

These pressure points won't look the same in every workplace. Hours worked, task demands, staffing levels, environmental conditions, and production pressures can all influence when employees are most likely to be distracted, fatigued, or rushed. Rather than offering another reminder to "be careful," employers should look for the factors creating the pressure and address them.

Why safety risk can change

OSHA and NIOSH both recognize that fatigue can affect safety. As work hours increase, attention, reaction time, and judgment can decline. Factors such as extended shifts, demanding work, heat, stress, and nontraditional schedules can make those effects more noticeable. and dangerous.

Fatigue and other pressures can make it harder to notice changing conditions, follow established procedures, or choose the safest response. A routine task can become riskier when something changes, and no one recognizes it in time.

Situational awareness plays a role as well. As tasks become repetitive, familiar safety checks can start to feel automatic. When that happens, it may lead to overlooking a changing condition, a new hazard, or something out of the ordinary.

For example, an employee who has safely moved materials dozens of times during a shift may be less likely to notice an obstacle in the travel path or a load that has shifted unexpectedly.

Let your own records tell the story

There's no universally dangerous time that applies to every workplace. Your own records may provide the best insight. Review incident investigations, near-miss reports, first-aid cases, and hazard observations. Look for patterns involving:

• The point in the shift when the event occurred;
• Hours worked;
• Time since the last break;
• Overtime;
• Staffing levels;
• Workload and production demands;
• Environmental conditions; and
• Whether a break, deadline, shift change, or quitting time was approaching.

Look for trends rather than focusing on individual incidents. The goal is to identify when employees face the greatest pressures and determine what factors may be contributing to the risk.

Act on what you find

Once employers identify where safety pressure points exist, they can take steps to reduce the risk before an incident occurs. Practical strategies may include:

• Empowering supervisors to pause or adjust work when conditions raise safety concerns;
• Holding brief hazard reviews at the start of a shift or when conditions change;
• Reviewing overtime, staffing, workload, and production demands;
• Rotating repetitive or demanding tasks when practical;
• Providing meaningful opportunities for rest, stretching, and hydration;
• Assessing environmental factors such as lighting and temperature;
• Planning safe stopping points before breaks and shift changes; and
• Using consistent shift handoffs to communicate hazards and operational changes.

Key to Remember: Safety expectations don't change with the clock, but the conditions affecting your people do. Find your pressure points, dig into what's driving them, and fix them before they cause an incident.

When hazards often begin

One challenge with abrasive wheel machines is that hazards can develop while the machine still appears to operate normally. The grinder turns on, the wheel spins, and employees continue working or adapt to deficiencies because no injury has occurred, creating a false sense of security.

Abrasive wheel machines are common, familiar, and often used for short tasks such as sharpening tools, smoothing rough edges, removing burrs, or preparing materials for production. Conditions that seem minor on the surface can expose employees to serious struck-by, contact, and fragmentation hazards. Common abrasive wheel machine hazards include:

• Contact with the rotating wheel,
• Flying sparks and debris,
• Wheel breakage or fragmentation,
• Material being pulled between the wheel and support surfaces,
• Improper wheel installation, and
• Inadequate eye and face protection.

What OSHA frequently evaluates

OSHA looks at whether the machine’s safeguards are in place, properly adjusted, and maintained to protect employees during use. As wheels wear down, the relationship between the wheel, work rest, and tongue guard changes with it. These changes happen a little at a time, they can be easy to miss during day-to-day work. If those adjustments aren’t made, a machine that may have been compliant when it was first set up can gradually become unsafe.

Inspections and employee awareness need to work together

Consistent inspections and effective training should work together. Inspections give employers a structured way to verify that abrasive wheel machines remain safe to use, especially after wheel replacement, maintenance activities, or extended periods of use. Training helps employees recognize the warning signs that may show up between those inspections, including unusual vibration, unfamiliar sounds, changes in performance, or equipment conditions that do not look right. Together, inspections and training should help employees evaluate:

• Wheel condition, including cracks, damage, or improper installation,
• Guard condition and proper placement,
• Excessive vibration, unusual sounds, or changes in performance,
• Signs of wear, loose components, or unauthorized modifications, and
• Conditions that require the machine to be removed from service.

Multiple layers of protection provide the best defense

No single safeguard eliminates every abrasive wheel hazard. The strongest programs use multiple layers of protection because wheel condition, machine adjustment, employee behavior, and PPE all affect whether the equipment is safe to use. Those layers should include:

Maintain effective machine guarding: Damaged, altered, or missing guards should be repaired or replaced promptly.

Establish preventative maintenance practices: Regular maintenance helps keep guards, adjustment points, and machine components in safe working conditions.

Encourage employee involvement: Employees should be encouraged to speak up and stop using equipment when something does not look, sound, or feel right.

Use appropriate personal protective equipment: PPE provides an additional layer of protection and works best when combined with engineering and administrative controls, not used as a substitute for them.

Key to remember: Consistent inspections, proactive maintenance, and employee awareness help prevent abrasive wheel equipment from becoming a serious injury hazard.

A death classified as "Serious"

Last July, a worker entered a fuel storage tank at a petroleum services worksite and was fatally exposed to benzene and toluene. Federal investigators found the company had:

• Failed to develop and implement a written permit-required confined space entry program.
• Failed to ensure workers understood the hazards and symptoms of exposure.
• Allowed entry without atmospheric evaluation or a permit.
• No written respiratory protection program.
• No hazard communication program covering the chemical exposure.

A worker died, but OSHA classified all twelve violations as "serious," proposing $60,242 in penalties. Not willful. Not repeat. Serious, which is the middle tier of OSHA's classification system. It’s reserved for violations where there was a substantial probability of death or serious harm and the employer knew or reasonably should have known about the hazard.

An injury classified as "Willful"

Compare that to a grain-handling company investigated the same season. A seasonal laborer suffered a serious but non-fatal foot injury after stepping through an unguarded sump hole onto a moving paddle-style unloading conveyor. Nobody died, but OSHA's response was significantly harsher with two willful violations, one serious violation, and three other-than-serious citations for:

• Failing to lock out and tag out machinery.
• Failing to protect workers from the sump hole hazard.
• Failing to provide grain-handling training.

The penalty totaled $276,407 in fines, more than four times the penalty for the fatal chemical exposure case.

Why does the gap exist

This is the part employers most often misunderstand. OSHA's classification system is not primarily a measure of how bad the outcome was. It's a measure of what the employer knew and chose to do about it. The five-tier system runs, roughly:

• De minimis — a technical violation with no direct relationship to safety, typically resulting in no penalty.
• Other-than-serious — a violation related to safety and health that probably wouldn't cause death or serious harm.
• Serious — a violation carrying substantial probability of death or serious physical harm, where the employer knew or should have known about the hazard but did not necessarily act with intent.
• Willful — a violation the employer committed intentionally and knowingly, or with plain indifference to the law. A classic example is knowingly exposing workers to hazardous chemicals without PPE after having already been warned.
• Repeat — a violation substantially similar to one the employer was already cited for within the past five years.

As tragic as the petroleum tank case was, it appears to reflect program failures OSHA could not establish as knowing or willful based on the evidence developed. The company lacked required programs, but investigators did not classify the violations as intentional disregard. The grain-handling case crossed that line because the specific failures such as bypassing lockout/tagout or leaving a known hazard unguarded read to investigators as choices rather than gaps.

What it could mean for your program

Severity of outcome and severity of classification are not the same axis. A near-miss with no injury at all can become a willful citation if an inspector believes you knew about the hazard and didn't act. A fatality can remain "serious" if the failures look more like systemic gaps than deliberate choices.

That means the conversation your safety team has after every incident should not just be "how bad was it?" It should be "what does our documented knowledge of this hazard look like and does our corrective action history support 'we didn't know' or contradict it?" Because once an inspector can show the second, the classification attached to your citation and the penalty attached changes dramatically.

Keys to remember: OSHA penalties are influenced not only by the severity of an incident, but also by what the employer knew about the hazard and the steps taken, or not taken, to correct it.