Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog

Federal laws prohibit employers from basing employment decisions on a variety of factors, including “sex.” This term is not defined, leaving its interpretation to change and expand with social changes and court decisions. The central entity creating and applying these interpretations is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which administers and enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a variety of subsequent laws. On July 15, EEOC reaffirmed its present interpretation, in an enforcement decision in which the plaintiff claimed he was denied access to a promotion because he’s gay (Baldwin v. Foxx). The EEOC’s order includes a clear summary of the agency’s approach to sex discrimination cases:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has just proposed to revise its requirement that employers prepare and maintain records of occupational injuries and illnesses as they occur – in “I&I Logs.” (I blogged about these requirements here). Employers must also post annual I&I Summaries in each workplace, and respond to survey questions if asked by OSHA or the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) adopted its Standard for Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (usually referred to as “PSM”) in 1992, to require extensive risk assessment and reduction efforts by facilities where a significant chemical incident might have catastrophic consequences. OSHA has made only minor technical revisions in the ensuing two decades. However, during that time OSHA has issued a series of regulatory interpretations and enforcement guidelines that affect how the Standard is implemented.

Since it’s the middle of summer, you may have interns working in your office. If so, are they being paid for their efforts, are they receiving academic credits, or are they working to build their resumes, portfolios and connections? Some employers always pay, some never do, and some are open to negotiations based on the intern and his or her activities.

Late in June the U.S. Supreme Court issued its latest ruling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) efforts to implement the Clean Air Act (CAA). This time a sharply divided Court voted 5 to 4 to vacate EPA’s attempt to regulate hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from fossil fuel-fired electricity power plants. The justices split over when during a decade-spanning, multi-phase rulemaking did CAA require EPA to calculate the costs and benefits of regulation—the Court majority ruled that this calculation should have occurred in the first round, rejecting EPA’s decision to do so later in the rulemaking sequence.

It’s been more than 30 years since the U.S. Congress enacted national underground storage tank (UST) requirements (federal UST Law) in 1984. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published extensive UST regulations in 1988, establishing technical requirements for the following:

Late in May 2015, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued guidelines under which qualifying chemical facilities can apply for expedited approval of site safety plans (SSPs) intended to protect the facilities against criminal or terrorist activity. These guidelines respond to a Congressional requirement included in amendments adopted in December 2014 to DHS’ Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Standards (CFATS) program.

Federal laws protect individuals against job discrimination based on a variety of “protected classes” of characteristics. Most represent physical characteristics, such as race, sex, and disability. In addition, however, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that it could accommodate without undue hardship.

Management of chemicals by your organization raises a host of environmental health and safety (EH&S) issues.  Some of those issues are represented by legal and regulatory compliance requirements, others by formal but non-binding programs that range from company policies to ISO certifications.  In response, organizations adopt and implement a wide variety of EH&S programs, including very broad ones (e.g., compliance with the Hazard Communication Standard) as well as very narrow ones (e.g., programs for managing entry into Confined Spaces).  Organizations with sufficient resources and the will to organize themselves will create systematic programs to evaluate EH&S issues to ensure they’re addressed, and to design and coordinate programs in ways that do so effectively and efficiently. (In 2013-2014 I prepared a series of e-books that outlined EH&S regulatory requirements triggered by chemicals - click here to download).

The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and state water quality laws (including California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act) govern activities that may affect “waters of the United States.” Routine discharges from industrial and public sources make up most potentially polluting discharges, and are subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and California Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), but additional requirements also apply to potential “storm water” runoff from rainwater and snow, which can entrain oils and other pollutants and wash them down storm drains into water bodies. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the first broad-based national program in 1990, and has revised and expanded requirements over the past quarter century (often in response to court decisions finding its efforts inadequate). States have followed suit. For example, in 2014 California updated its industrial storm water requirements, replacing a general permit adopted in 1997 with a new one that becomes effective on July 1, 2015. The new permit revises and expands requirements, including narrowing exemptions for “light industry” facilities to become conditional exemptions subject to certification requirements, and addition of detailed requirements for “preproduction plastic” materials. The remainder of this note summarizes the new California requirements, which generally are comparable to EPA’s national general permit (last updated in 2008)–so readers outside California should remember that your facilities face analogous responsibilities.